LawTalk 876 by New Zealand Law Society

Law Talk 23 O c to b e r 2015

876

Cyber-Security: Protecting your data

â&#x20AC;&#x153;We live in a data economy,â&#x20AC;? acting GCSB director Una Jagose said last month. And for no profession is it likely more true than for law.

Never drop the ball aGaiN. lexis® draft does it all for you: • eagle eye for legal proofreading • reviews and compiles citations • links to deeper research

• pdF converter • Collaboration and information-sharing tools • Keep track of authorities with pinned items

lexis® draft is part of the Smartoffice® Suite, giving you back more time to do what matters most to you.

MP092015JB

Contact our team today on 0800 800 986. Go to www.lexisnexis.co.nz/drafting for more information.

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Inside

23 October 2015

LawTalk 876

Cyber-Security: Protecting your data Law is about information. Almost everything lawyers do rests on the knowledge that essential information exists, is available, and is secure from being accessed by those without authority.

Our Profession, Our People

Practising well Vicarious trauma — the quiet intruder, part 2.

The dynamic world of Internet governance.

Life in the law Four little online irritants.

Reflective practice Engaging with professional learning is essential. One way of doing this is through reflective practice.

Legal information Crimes Act 1961, 20th edition; Health Law in New Zealand; Property Law Statutes, 9th edition; Unit Titles Law and Practice, 2nd edition; NZ Charity & Legal Gazette, 40th edition; Directors Powers and Duties, 2nd edition, reviewed by Jeremy Browne; Insurance Claims in New Zealand, reviewed by Rebecca Scott; McMorland on Easements, Covenants and Licences, reviewed by Jacintha Atkinson.

33 Branch returns to pre-earthquake address.

A highly photogenic polished wooden gavel ... of the sort never used in New Zealand courts.

Law reform Law Society identifies problems with ‘bright-line test’.

How do I become a barrister?

Criminal offending and deportation liability

Legal aid – good practice themes

Alcohol interlock pilot

Last hurrah for locus standi

NZLS CLE – CPD calendar

Law Foundation

Lawyers Complaints Service

Coming up

Classified Advertising

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

News Points Access to justice Recasting our system of justice through the use of technology is of “critical importance,” according to Britain’s Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. In a speech given to the Legal Research Foundation Conference in Auckland on 25 September, Lord Thomas said there was a “risk that access to justice is not being provided. The cost of accessing the justice system is often prohibitive, be that as a result of reduced spending on legal aid or the rising costs of privately funded legal representation.” His speech is available at www.judiciary.gov. uk/announcements/speech-by-the-lord-chiefjustice-the-legacy-of-magna-carta/.

End of Life Bill welcomed The family of Lecretia Seales have offered their congratulations to the family of Brittany Maynard, their supporters and many people who came before them as California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the End of Life Bill on 6 October. The bill provides for assisted dying. A former Wellington lawyer, Ms Seales took a case to the High Court earlier this year, seeking a ruling that a doctor assisting her to die with her consent would not be prosecuted or, if they were prosecuted, that this would be an infringement of their rights. Ms Seales did not get the ruling she sought. Brittany Maynard, like Ms Seales, suffered from a brain tumour and sought a choice about how and when she would die. Ms Maynard received assistance to die, after moving from California to Oregon where assisted dying has been legal since 1994. In New Zealand, the Health Select Committee has agreed to look into the issue of assisted dying after a petition was presented to Parliament by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society in June. The Select Committee is taking submissions on the issue until February 2016.

First indigenous SC Anthony McAvoy SC has become Australia’s first Senior Counsel of indigenous heritage. Mr McAvoy was one of 26 New South Wales barristers who were made Senior Counsel on 24 September. Both the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Bar Association have warmly congratulated Mr McAvoy on his achievement.

LawTalk is published by the New Zealand Law Society for the New Zealand legal profession. It is published fortnightly and has been published since 1974. LawTalk is sent to every lawyer in New Zealand who holds a current practising certificate. Lawyer numbers change over the year, but range from 12,000 upwards. LawTalk is also sent to further recipients who include members of the judiciary, Law Society associate members,

legal executives, Members of Parliament, media, academics and others involved in the legal services industry. Total circulation ranges between 12,500 and 13,000 copies. An online version of LawTalk is available on the New Zealand Law Society’s website at www.lawsociety.org.nz. This contains most of the articles included in each issue and a full pdf file of each hardcopy issue may also be downloaded.

E N V I R O N M E N TA L S TAT E M E N T

LawTalk is printed on Sumo Matte. This is an environmentally responsible paper, produced using Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF), FSC© certified, Mixed Source pulp from Responsible Sources, and manufactured under the strict ISO14001 Environmental Management System. The FSC certification means that the international Forest Stewardship Council

has certified that the paper used to produce LawTalk meets its requirements at all stages along the production chain. The shrink wrap used for delivery of LawTalk is 25 micron biodegradable film manufactured in New Zealand. This degrades naturally. If you wish to discard LawTalk please recycle it. The wrapping may be composted. E D I TO R Frank Neill · 04 463 2982 editor@lawsociety.org.nz

Established in 1869, the New Zealand Law Society regulates the practice of law in New Zealand and represents the interests of lawyers who choose to be members. The powers and functions of the Law Society are set out in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. As well as upholding the fundamental obligations imposed on lawyers who provide regulated services, the Law Society is required to assist and promote the reform of the law, for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand.  26 Waring Taylor St, Wellington 6011, New Zealand 04 472 7837  P O Box 5041, Wellington 6145,  New Zealand, or DX SP20202 President – Chris Moore Board – Allister Davis (South Island), John Unsworth (North Island), Kathryn Beck (Auckland), Mark Wilton (Wellington) Executive Director – Christine Grice

JO U R N A L I STS Sasha Borissenko · 04 463 2910 sasha.borissenko@lawsociety.org.nz James Greenland · 04 463 2902 james.greenland@lawsociety.org.nz SE N I O R D E SI GN E R Andrew Jacombs · 04 463 2981 andrew.jacombs@lawsociety.org.nz D E SI GN E R Daz Yang · 04 463 7837 daz.yang@lawsociety.org.nz A D V E R TI SI N G Christine Wilson · 04 463 2905 advertising@lawsociety.org.nz W E BM A STE R Miranda Kaye · 04 463 2990 miranda.kaye@lawsociety.org.nz CO M M U N I CATI O N S M AN AG E R Geoff Adlam · 04 463 2980 geoff.adlam@lawsociety.org.nz P R I N TI N G Service Printers, Wellington D I STR I BU TI O N Western Mailing, Lower Hutt ISSN 0114-989X (Print) ISSN 2382-0330 (Online)

Unless it is clearly indicated, the views expressed in LawTalk are not to be taken as those of, or endorsed by, the New Zealand Law Society. No responsibility whatsoever is accepted by the New Zealand Law Society for any opinion, information, or advertisement contained in LawTalk.

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

From the Law Society

Protecting your important information “Information is everything.” This is how Law Society journalist James Greenland begins the feature on cyber security in this issue of LawTalk. James was quoting from a statement United States President Bill Clinton made in the 1990s. One thing is certain, and that is how radically information technology has changed in the last few decades. We have moved from telephones with dials, linked in a network by actual physical cables, to vastly different technology for our landlines. And we can add to that our cell phones and the networks they use to connect. We have moved from letters and telegrams being our main form of communication through faxes to emails. And we now have computers. The movement in technology has been far reaching. It’s hard to believe that less than 20 years ago, Richard Susskind’s prediction that email would soon become the most common method lawyers used to communicate with clients led to howls of outrage from the United Kingdom’s legal community. His 1996 prediction saw him accused of bringing the profession into disrepute. Email communication is now commonplace among lawyers. Some are still sending faxes, but the numbers are steadily reducing. With information technology becoming so integral to practice in the 21st century, it is important for lawyers to keep up to date. This is particularly the case when it comes to security. It’s as simple as this really. No lawyer who is the last to leave their workplace in the evening would dream of leaving the premises unlocked, so anyone could walk in, view client files for example, or make any other mischief. The same applies to security around information technology. It is a must. Given that, it is important that we learn as much as we can about cyber security. How do we protect ourselves? What is the equivalent of locking the office when we leave for the day or for the weekend? What do we put in place to mitigate the risks? This issue of LawTalk looks at those questions and also provides some practical pointers about what you can do. It looks at security measures that can be put in place, the importance of planning and also what to do in case there has been some sort of breach. These issues are as important to the practice of law as keeping up to date with developments in your practice area or areas. Alison Souness New Zealand Law Society Hawke’s Bay branch President

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Cyber-Security Protecting your data BY JAMES GREENLAND

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

“Information is everything,” Bill Clinton said in the 90s. “We live in a data economy,” acting Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) director Una Jagose said last month. You’ve probably heard something similar before, and for no profession is it likely more true than for law.

Law is about information. From databases storing clients’ details, to records of file notes, title searches, online banking, accounting, trust account transactions, internal memos, emails, evidence – almost everything lawyers do rests on the knowledge that essential information exists, is available, and is secure from being accessed by those without authority. And since the meteoric rise of the World Wide Web lawyers have relied on internet networks to manage and work with information that was once stored snugly in hardcopy in their firm’s back-room filing cabinets. Today’s information tends to be stored inside vast digital servers and databases, and within the ethereal “cloud” that floats above cyber-space and absorbs much of the information that is generated online. It’s a lot of information.

Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt has remarked that “every two days internet users create about as much information as humanity created from the dawn of civilisation up to 2003” – about five billion billion bytes. That’s a LOT of pictures of cute kittens. It is Hammurabi’s entire code, times a quintillion or so. The full text of Magna Carta wouldn’t even make a ripple in the data pool. While much internet traffic is innocuous user-generated content – Facebook posts about family holidays, pets and ‘selfies’ (so many ‘selfies’) – more and more commerce is being conducted online, including many of the services and activities of law practices. “Your data is valuable,” Ms Jagose beseeches. And with value comes risk. “Connectivity to the internet knows no geographical boundaries, and, accordingly, there is vulnerability.”

New opportunity, new risk The speed, ease and efficiency of digital business operations has increased opportunities for law firms, for example to find new clients, build professional networks

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

and to work more effectively. But the growing trend to move work and data storage online also introduces risk. “The internet wasn’t designed with security in mind,” Ms Jagose says. “The more we are connected to and holding data on internet-facing systems, the greater our vulnerability to attack,” she says. In 2017 there will be three times as many internet devices as there are people on earth, she says. Nearly two billion people already use the internet as a preferred means of communication. “The scale and pace of growth is almost unimaginable, and means vulnerabilities are constantly being introduced, protected against, and reintroduced and discovered. “It’s a scale that offers massive opportunities, both for those who have good intentions, and those who don’t.” As pickpockets frequent bustling public places to ply their craft, internet-savvy criminals lurk at the edges of organisations’ internet-facing systems in the deepest, dark parts of the World Wide Web, sniffing for security gaps and opportunities to breach sensitive, private data storage systems and networks – like those guarded by law firms. Dogs will gather wherever butchers do business. Let’s

❝ The more we are connected to and holding data on internet-facing systems, the greater our vulnerability to attack

Attack Formations — Cyber-attacks defined A cyber-attack is any type of offensive manoeuvre employed by individuals or organisations that targets computer information systems, infrastructures, networks or personal digital devices by various malicious means usually originating from an anonymous source that either steals, alters or destroys information or network/device capabilities following the “hack” of a susceptible system. “Malware” is a general term to describe malicious software designed with the intention of perpetrating some form of cyber-attack.

Why ‘hack’? “Hackers” attack for as many reasons as traditional trouble-makers commit crimes and vandalise. There’s financial incentive. Holding a large company to ransom might be a lucrative ploy, especially for a computer-savvy crook with few other economic opportunities. Stealing the intimate details of an individual’s private life can give cyber-criminals leverage to extort cash too. But it’s not always money they’re after. “Hacktivism” describes the act of committing cyber-attacks with the intention of making a political protest, or an ideological statement. The disparate underground network ‘Anonymous’ is a face, if you will, of this kind of computer hacking. ‘Anonymous’ regularly attacks networks belonging to

corporations and government agencies that they perceive to have acted immorally or illegally, by preventing users from accessing websites or defacing an organisation’s home page with digital graffiti. Picket-signs of the IT age. And there are hackers who disrupt networks or break through security measures merely to make the point that they can do it, or for fun, or as a test, to stretch their intellectual legs. Some common types of cyber-attack:

Viruses Self-replicating computer programs that infect a device or network, attaching themselves to another program or file in order to reproduce. Often difficult to detect, computer viruses, like their microbial namesakes, hide inside a system and take advantage of its own processes or software to execute its code and wreak potential havoc on the host.

Trojans Just like in the epic tale of Troy, these are programs built to appear as something harmless, even useful, which actually conceal a hidden and unwanted agenda. Most often users and network administrators won’t know a Trojan horse has corrupted their systems, often with the goal of, again like in the tale, breaking in to a system and then opening the “doors” from the inside allowing other malware to get in.

Semantic attacks Involve the modification and dissemination of incorrect and correct information to confuse or mislead. Attacks manifest as defamatory renderings of otherwise appropriate information, the turning of unbiased fact into propaganda, and stock-manipulation schemes. A traditional con made more powerful with the help of computers.

Worms

Ransomware

Like viruses, but can attach to a system without needing another file or program to reproduce. Worms are sophisticated programs that replicate rapidly across an infected network and are highly contagious to other networks that interact with the host. Large-scale worms are employed at the government level for mass-scale espionage.

Malware that restricts access to a computer system and demands that a user pay money to the operators of the malware to re-allow access.

DoS and DDoS attacks “Denial of service” attacks prevent legitimate users from accessing online services, usually

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

call them cyber-criminals. Cyber-criminals’ mischief manifests in a variety of ways, and it is important that company boards, directors, and staff have at least some understanding of the potential pitfalls of operating a business over the internet.

Knowing the threat – Data breaches, denial of service and developing trends Whether it’s credit card information hacked from a website designed to help spouses have affairs, or diplomatic cables that reveal the behind-closed-doors discussions and opinions of political leaders, or leaked pictures from celebrities’ cell phones, data security breaches and other cyber-risks have become a commonplace feature of the modern digitised world. What the still-developing Ashley Madison leak of 2015, the ongoing WikiLeaks revelations, and the infamous public-figure phone hacks have in common is information. In each case, the targets – a popular website, the US government, celebrities – held information that was intended to be secure, on networks that were meant to be private.

by the sending of excessive spam messages that confuse the server to the point where it is unable to operate effectively. Distributed denial of service, DDOS, attacks are larger scale disruptions utilising a network of corrupted systems to flood a server and disrupt an organisation’s digital operations.

Email scams Not traditionally a hack, but rather a traditional type of con that utilises the impersonal nature of email and trusting human natures in order to trick individuals into providing private information, network access, money, even romantic love is egregiously solicited through email scams.

‘Phishing’ and ‘spear-phishing’ Baiting an individual or organisation into giving hackers the access or information they want. Phishing usually involves spam – unwanted emails – being sent to millions of account-holders around the world. With a million hooks in the water, there are bound to be some bites. “Spear-phishing” is targeted. Emails land in a user’s inbox and appear to be legitimate, looking like a letter from a client or a memo from a business associate or a message from your bank encouraging you to disclose details such as passwords, account access keys, and private client or business information. Without vigilance, targeted fake communications – spear-phishing lures – can easily go unnoticed by the bleary-eyed

office worker who opens the dodgy email at 5pm just before heading home.

Social engineering Actually not a type but a tactic, employed by cyber-criminals with specific targets. The combination of new, sometimes confusing, digital technologies with the traditional vulnerabilities of individuals – gullibility, trust, uncertainty, hope, anxiety, fear – makes “human hacking’”one of the most successful means of committing a scam. As many have said, “you can have the best security software in the world, it’s only as good as your people”. You’re only as secure as the least vigilant staff member who uses your network and might click on a link they shouldn’t, open a dubious email, leave passwords lying around or, worse, tell passwords to an unknown caller claiming to be from Microsoft. Three-quarters of successful cyber-attacks utilise “social engineering” methods akin to the traditional tricks of the con-artistry trade in combination with some basic computer network knowledge. The danger with this evolving trend is that it doesn’t require vast arrays of expensive supercomputers or servers, or significant programming expertise to be successful. All these cyber-criminals need is a decent understanding of human psychology, and the patience to build up knowledge of the target and familiarity with their operations, to “case the joint”, and wait for the right well-informed, well-prepared moment to strike.

Privacy concerns over data leaks and security breaches regularly make media headlines, and are a growing concern, particularly for those with online habits they’d rather remained hidden. But there are other threats too, which can cause damage far beyond the embarrassment or reputational injury that may be suffered in the wake of a data breach, cyber-insurance expert Bob Parisi says. “Many [cyber-criminals] are not after information, but are trying to access systems, disrupt processes and gain access to target organisations via the target’s business partners. “Attempting to fit all of the risks a business faces today into a traditional policy is like putting a round peg into a square hole.” Part of the problem is that cyber-risks are too many, and are developing too rapidly for policy-takers to foresee all of the potential consequences, liabilities and costs that might result from a digital security breach. “It’s difficult to mitigate against unexpected threats,” he says. It can be hard to glean a clear picture from the numbers, but what is certain is that the threat is growing. In the first 10 weeks this year the GCSB resolved more cyber-security incidents than it did in all of 2014. In 2013 the largest single DoS attack in history was recorded. It was three-times bigger than the previous biggest attack. In 2014 non-profit New Zealand organisation NetSafe recorded 8,121 incidents and $8 million directly lost to a range of “digital challenges”. Indirectly, it could be a $500 million dollar issue for the New Zealand economy. It’s been estimated that, globally, trillions of dollars are liable to be lost annually because of cyber-crimes. “[The cyber-risk] is growing in sophistication and size,” says Paul Ash, director of the National Cyber Policy Office, an office of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet established in 2012 to formulate policy and advise government and private sector partners on how to respond to cyber-security threats. “It’s not going away, it’s getting worse. In response, companies are getting better at defending themselves, but that adjustment can take time.” Unsurprisingly, given the growing

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

magnitude of risk, digital security has become a very big business, both on the “top-of-the-cliff ” and at the “bottom”. Most firms likely already employ some form of anti-virus software to guard against attempted hacks and scams. But what if, as the experts suggest may be inevitable, one gets through?

Mitigating cyber-risk – Indemnity insurance Cyber-risk insurance is worth billions on the global insurance market, and is experiencing “unparalleled growth”, Bob Parisi says. Anecdotally, the NZLS has heard of clients requesting descriptions and guarantees of a law firm’s internet security strategy before they might be considered as a potential winning tenderer. International insurance and risk management company Marsh recently held two fully-booked seminars in Wellington to illustrate the growing global threat posed by cyber-risks. Mr Parisi explained that “traditional insurance was written for a world that no longer exists”. It’s not that insurers have failed to recognise the perils of the online commercial world, or failed to digitise their own operations alongside other modern industries. It’s that the game itself, while still relatively new, is changing, and security software companies, cyber-crime policing units, and others with skin in it are struggling to keep up. “It used to be, [cyber-criminals] would hack into a system, steal a company’s data or sensitive information, then offer to return it for a ransom,” Mr Parisi says. “They were good hackers, but bad criminals.” But in the wake of developing technology and increased digital commerce, hackers have become savvier, better at breaking the numerous laws usually breached by any given cyber-attack. With the rise of the so-called “Dark Net” or “Deep Web” – an “area” of the internet not easily accessed by the public, where passwords and other private information is stored – black-markets have arisen. They are privately-accessed forums, like shadowy alleys where traditional deals between mobsters and con artists might occur – shady “places” where a swelling network of mal-intentioned and opportunistic internet users conspire unseen, plan hits or attacks, and trade in criminal spoils. Cyber attacks involving blackmail now usually involve many more parties than just the original hacker, who, as soon as he or she sells the stolen data or private network-access key to a third party, silently disappears without a trace into the deepest darkest parts of the net (and, often, eastern Europe) never to be ever seen nor heard from, Mr Parisi says. The information is then traded and on-sold on the Deep Web black markets.

❝ If an entity uses technology in its operations, and/or handles, collects, stores confidential information – it has cyber risk

Nine perils of operat 1. Legal liability to others for computer security breaches For example, if your business network is compromised and that leads to a hack or attack on a third-party business associate’s systems, you might be liable for contributory negligence in the aftermath of fixing the security flaws and fallout.

2. Legal liability to others for privacy breaches of confidential information Remember the Ministry of Social Development’s leaky WINZ kiosks back in 2012.

3. Regulatory actions, fines For example, a privacy breach in New Zealand involving information belonging to an American person or company might bring the liable party within the wide jurisdiction of the USA’s cyber-incident reporting laws.

4. Cyber-extortion Recent reports include versions of a “honey-pot” trap, where unwary internet users are duped into accessing questionable files, or engaging in questionable acts, which are then documented and used to hold the often-prepared-to-pay user to ransom, like the Kiwi blokes blackmailed into paying cash to prevent the release of their identifiable details from the Ashley Madison leak.

5. Cyber-terrorism Have you seen Die Hard 4.0 – Live Free or Die Hard? Internet-terrorism illustrated as only Hollywood knows how.

6. Loss or damage to data or information Maintenance of certain information is crucial for the operation of any business, for example staff, client and supplier information. If this information is lost or corrupted, getting the business back on track might be impossible.

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Saucy photos from hacked celebrities’ phones are bargained for by gossip magazines and website hosts and fetch a high price, but the real prize, while usually less salacious, has potential to have a much wider effect. Screeds of company records and accounting data and personal information don’t have the inherent attention-grabbing value of a famous person’s private photos, but such information can carry currency enough to hold large, powerful companies to ransom. And as firms move more and more of their work and sensitive data storage solutions onto online platforms the threat multiplies. “If an entity uses technology in its operations, and/ or handles, collects, stores confidential information – it has cyber risk,” Mr Parisi says. He identifies at least nine distinct “exposures” or “perils” of operating a business online, which he suggests

ing a business online 7. Loss of revenue due to network attack Related to the above, this peril is on the rise. Determined hackers are able to disable some businesses’ entire operations by denying internet users access to their online interface. Technology not working as it should has recently replaced adverse weather as the biggest cause of disruption to business operations. Denial of service attacks could potentially shut down a business for weeks or months, perhaps permanently, preventing future profits as well as likely creating immediate contractual liabilities to third parties. Imagine a trouble-maker sending 10,000 people to a hotel all at once – no one would be able to squeeze in further than the lobby.

8. Extra expense to recover or respond to an attack It might be essential to get the company’s data back, which could require teams of digital forensic analysts, auditors, and other experts, who won’t be able to guarantee the return of essential information. There may be ongoing costs associated with identifying and prosecuting the culprits, who usually operate from far-flung under-developed countries that are unlikely to have extradition agreements with New Zealand, nor the wherewithal to apprehend sleeper-cells of cyber criminals growing in numbers and sophistication.

9. Loss or damage to reputation Potentially the part of an organisation most vulnerable to cyber-attack. Once a going concern’s goodwill is jeopardised, the point of no return may have already passed. And making an outfit look silly is often easier than attempting to extort money or steal data, with “hacktivists” occasionally making their point by “vandalising” corporate websites seemingly with no intention other than to prove themselves worthy of worrying about.

professionals consider in the context of their professional indemnity policies. The first three “exposures” could result in a targeted company owing liabilities to third parties, the next two are threats that may manifest into actual monetary cost, while the final four constitute tangible direct losses of company revenue. About the cost of lost reputation, Mr Parisi says the magnitude of potential risk is directly related to how well a company can “damage control” a situation after it has occurred. “You don’t want to be the next company in the news or the newspapers, having their activities picked apart by the press,” he says.

Just another risk — Accept it National Cyber Policy Office Director Paul Ash has heard of companies “pulling out typewriters” to record their transaction records and other business operations. That’s one way to get around the risk – break the link in the digital chain – but a far less efficient way to operate a modern business. “It’s better to understand and manage the risks, not to avoid them,” Mr Ash says. As Ms Jagose admits, the only way to avoid the risks is to have a better defence than every potential attack and “that’s not likely.” Rather, she recommends that organisations adopt a “risk acceptance strategy to mitigate risk and prepare resilience to those risks being realised at some point.” New Zealand businesses and government agencies must change their thinking about cyber-security, re-framing it from an “IT risk” for the tech experts to manage to an “operational risk” like any other that prudent businesses must plan and account for, Mr Ash says. “Treat cyber-security as a risk-management issue or exercise,” is his advice. “Managing the risk is just a part of the digitised world.” Board and management-level decision-makers must realise the significance of cyber-threats to their business operations and must “act now, plan accordingly”, by raising these issues within their organisations, putting systems in place to mitigate known and unknown risks and identifying and responding to crises if they occur. “We are fundamentally a pretty trusting bunch in New Zealand,” Mr Ash says. “We too often think ‘it won’t happen to us’. “We need to find ways to get over that.” New Zealand businesses have traditionally enjoyed a sense of security, relative safety from the turbulence and legal technicalities of commerce and crime between border-sharing countries, which has derived from our geographic isolation, Mr Ash says. In the digitally connected global economy, that no longer applies. “Cyber-attacks collapse that paradigm.”

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

A local perspective Kendra Ross is a Kiwi working on the digital frontier to help protect businesses from cyber crime. She founded and directs Duo NZ Ltd, one of the country’s largest IT security distributors. She recently established the INFOSEC security awards NZ, and constantly encounters new and evolving cyber risks. “Data or information is the new currency,” she says. “Through a breach and disclosure of millions of credit cards you can cripple the share price of a company and have all the ‘C’ suite fall on their swords like Target in the USA or you can cause untold embarrassment and potential death as seen with Ashley Madison. “If you are connected to the internet or a mobile network then everything is available at some point in time.” She notes three “thriving” areas of cyber crime that New Zealand is not immune to: 1 Criminals moving from traditional black-market trade, such as in drugs and weapons, to the cyber-sphere, where there are no borders to cross, staff are more reliable, and there are fewer “moving parts” in the operation where things might go wrong. “They are following the money.” 2 “Hacktivism” is on the rise, with embarrassment and potential ruin a real risk for targeted organisations. 3 State-sponsored espionage – the most difficult area of cyber crime to shine light on – employed by government spy agencies to target other governments’ systems to steal intellectual property, uncover state secrets, or to achieve other political ends. But, in her opinion, the biggest risk to law firms remains the potential exposure of a client’s data through a breach or hack that results in brand or reputational damage and loss of trust in the small New Zealand market. “Many law firms’ clients are going to be small and medium enterprises (SME’s), and they will have poor information technology security postures. Therefore the digital supply chain – email coming into firms – is very likely to be tainted already. “These days it’s not a case of when the bad guys get in to their system and reach the ‘Crown Jewels’ – data – it’s a case of how they got in, where are they and what have they got already.”

A view from the top As cyber crime has become more prevalent the New Zealand government and others around the world have responded with various policies, initiatives and advice. Not-for-profit private organisations like NetSafe also play an important and massive role in educating the public, monitoring cyber threats, and providing a platform to report incidents or seek advice. We have the National Cyber Security Strategy of 2011; the National Cyber Policy Office oversees the implementation of this. The government’s response

is delivered by a range of operational agencies, including the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) within the GCSB, which is charged with protecting the operations of “critical infrastructure providers” such as power and telecommunications companies. The NCSC also delivers Project CORTEX, an initiative to counter sophisticated malware that targets New Zealand‘s most important information systems. The NCPO also operates “connectsmart. govt.nz” – a digital protection web resource and partnership across the public and private sectors. The police have developed the Cybercrime Unit which focuses on prevention, investigation and prosecution, where other agencies are concerned with defence and recovery. The Online Reporting Button (ORB), is a partnership between NetSafe and the Government that enables internet users to report online abuses. The New Zealand Internet Task Force is another private entity offering information and advice. Despite the wide response, Parliament has not yet considered the mandatory reporting of cyber security breaches. At this point, Mr Ash says New Zealand is keener to develop within domestic organisations an “intrinsic desire to report and record incidents”, rather than rely on rules and sanctions. “Treat cyber risk like any other business risk; act now, and act accordingly,” he advises. Internationally, the trend among developed economies is for legislatures to enact regulatory notification requirements following significant cyber security breaches, Mr Parisi says. The USA and Europe have led the way. Australia is ahead of us. China is catching up fast. But this area of crime and prevention is so dynamic that the regulations enacted have been described as “goofy”, the interplay between international commerce and domestic law creating uncertainties in its application. A wholesale governmental intelligence review is anticipated in the coming months, as policy and best practice doesn’t remain relevant or adequate for long in this rapidly evolving arena. ▪

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

What you can do Prevent, Plan, Recover, Don’t panic 1. Realise the risks, plan accordingly talk to your IT experts, but also other members of your organisation, to discuss the security measures already in place. Ensure they are adequate. But don’t expect them to prevent every single attack.

2. Be vigilant without being paranoid, learn to distrust or at least be wary of unsolicited emails and other communications made directly to you online. If in doubt about the legitimacy of a client’s instructions given via email, call or ask them in person. If it looks too good to be true … Better safe than …

3. Stay educated not even experts can easily keep up with the pace of change, but general awareness of current events and trends in the cyber security sphere will help you avoid falling victim to the latest scam.

4. Don’t panic it’s best once you believe you may have been attacked to tell the authorities. While malware can remain undetected for years, time is still of the essence in identifying a threat, responding to it and recovering. Remain calm, and implement your procedures – you’ve planned for this.

5. If the firm’s trust account has been compromised, tell the bank. Tell your insurer. Tell the police. Let the Law Society know it might be able to help. And consider informing the agencies mentioned above, such as connectsmart, NetSafe, the ORB, the police and the NCSC. These organisations were established to help protect New Zealand’s information economy.

6. Consider your professional obligations the Rules of Conduct and Client Care are clear that lawyers must keep clients’ information in confidence. A privacy breach,

even one that busts through significant defences, could leave a firm or individual lawyer liable for untold amounts of money and professional negligence claims. Take expert legal advice.

7. Do not admit liability consider your insurance policy and how your cover might be affected if you admit fault. There may come a time for apologies and recompense during the final recovery stage. But in the midst of an incident, prudency suggests head-down-mouthshut is the best approach, at least until you understand what has gone wrong and how it might be resolved.

8. Recover, re-patch security gaps, and reconsider your plan you’ve survived an attack, relax. Think about what went wrong – inadequate firewalls? Uneducated or imprudent staff? Lack of clear policy? Fix it. Get expert advice. Ask the government and non-profits for help. Accept that cyber risks are just a pitfall of the digital age that all online organisations must deal with. Whether a firm survives or dies depends as much on the response and recovery effort as it does on the sophistication of an attack.

IT expert tips from the GCSB and NCSC The NCSC advises that there are four basic steps that organisations can take to substantially reduce their vulnerability to cyber threats. These are: 1 use application white listing to help prevent malicious software and unapproved programs from running; 2 patch operating system vulnerabilities; 3 patch applications such as Java, PDF viewers, Flash, web browsers and Microsoft Office; and 4 restrict administrative privileges to operating systems and applications based on user duties. The NCSC also publishes a range of advice for executives and boards on its website at www.ncsc.govt.nz/resources

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Our Profession Our People Judge Peter Boshier will become the new Chief Ombudsman on 10 December. Judge Boshier will succeed Dame Beverley Wakem, who has been Chief Ombudsman since November 2007 and who is retiring. After graduating Judge Peter Boshier from Victoria University with an LLB in 1975, Judge Boshier practised in Wellington. He was appointed a District Court Judge with a specialist Family Court warrant in 1988. In 2004 Judge Boshier was appointed as the Principal Family Court Judge and held that position until December 2012. After that he became a Law Commissioner, the position he currently holds. Clive Elliott QC has been appointed President-elect of the New Zealand Bar Association (NZBA). Mr Elliott is a Council member of both the NZBA and the New Zealand Law Society Auckland branch. He is a Clive Elliott QC past Council member of the Legal Practice Division of the International Bar Association (IBA) and past co-chair of the IBA’s Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Committee. Until recently he was convenor of the New Zealand Law Society’s Intellectual Property Law Committee. Mr Elliott is the immediate past President of the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand and remains a member of its Trans-Tasman committee. Professor Ursula Cheer has been appointed Dean of the Canterbury University Law School, becoming the first woman to hold the post in the school’s 142-year

Prof Ursula Cheer

Our Profession, Our People

Abortion law analysis wins award Auckland lawyer Hugo Farmer is the winner of the Rex Mason Award for 2014. Mr Farmer won for his article An analysis of NZ’s abortion law system and a guide to reform. New Zealand’s longest-established legal writing award, it is given for an article adjudged the best appearing in any New Zealand legal publication in each calendar year. The prize was established in 1973 to commemorate Henry Greathead Rex Mason (1885-1975), one of New Zealand’s longest-serving MPs and Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in the first and second Labour governments. The award is managed by the New Zealand Law Society’s Wellington branch,

history. She will take up the appointment in January. Professor Cheer joined the law school as a lecturer in 1995 after working in private practice and in the civil service as a legal adviser to the Prime Minister and to the Lord Chancellor in the United Kingdom. She obtained an LLB (Hons) from Canterbury University in 1982 and an LLM from Cambridge University in 1990. In 2009, Professor Cheer was awarded a PhD from Canterbury for her thesis entitled: Reality and Myth: The New Zealand Media and the Chilling Effect of Defamation Law. Professor Cheer’s research interests lie in a combination of torts, such as defamation, freedom of expression and the New Zealand Bill of Rights; and the broad range of topics making up media law, such as privacy, court reporting and contempt, confidentiality, copyright and regulatory systems such as the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Press Council. Professor Susy Frankel has become the first Australasian President of the International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research of Intellectual Property (ATRIP). ATRIP is a global Susy Frankel organisation with a significant European and North American membership and a growing membership in Asia and this part of the world. Professor Frankel, who is on the academic staff of Victoria University’s Law School, succeeds Professor Tana Psitorius of

and this year’s judges were Justice Sir William Young (nominated by the Chief Justice), Brenda Midson (Editor of the New ZeaHugo Farmer land Law Journal) and Professor Mark Hickford (Law Dean at Victoria University). The $1,000 prize will be presented to Mr Farmer at a ceremony on 12 November. A solicitor in Russell McVeagh’s litigation department, Mr Farmer is also a graduate teaching assistant at Auckland University. ▪ the University of Pretoria. Wellington barrister Kristy McDonald QC is the new chair of the kiwifruit industry regulator Kiwifruit New Zealand (KNZ). She succeeds Sir Brian Elwood, who has been in the role for 11 years. Ms McDonald is a director of a number of boards including the Accident Compensation Corporation and Wairarapa Building Society. She chairs the Judicial Control Authority for Racing and is the former Chair of the Real Estate Agents Authority. Wellington lawyer John McCay has been appointed to the New Zealand Film Commission (NZFC) Board. A partner of Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Mr McCay has previously advised the NZFC, Film New Zealand and New Zealand on Air, as well as being involved in a range of New Zealand films including Whale Rider and The World’s Fastest Indian. Mr McCay is a former chair of Film NZ and a trustee of the Wellington Arts Foundation, New Zealand International Festival of the Arts and Limbs4All Trust. Wellington barrister Jo Hughson has been appointed chair of the Social Workers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal for a three-year term. Jo is a barrister at Featherston Chambers. Catherine Garvey, barrister at Quay Chambers in Auckland, has been appointed deputy chair. Both Jo and Catherine have many years’ experience in professional disciplinary matters involving a wide range of professions.

Our Profession, Our People

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Susan Chalmers in her art installation, comprised of a collection of rejection letters.

The dynamic world of Internet governance After University, American Susan Chalmers decided to put her piano and French training towards running a chamber music festival. It was working with performers and commissioning original works at the festival that she realised copyright on the Internet was increasingly important. “I decided to go to law school because I wanted to study copyright. I wanted to represent musicians and try cases. By this point, I had been on both sides of the stage – as a performer, and as an administrator – and I like to advocate for others, so it made sense.” Susan was in law school when the global financial crisis (GFC) hit, crippling the United States job market. She graduated at the top of her class but, after sending out hundreds of resumes, and getting almost as many rejection letters, Susan decided to venture to New Zealand. She completed an LLM at Auckland University after she heard the country was “a friendly, beautiful, and socially progressive place, with little corruption”. “The GFC was dire. In some cases I was applying for the same job that experienced attorneys were applying for. It was getting heavy – receiving rejection letters in the mail all of the time, so I decided to make art out of it.” While writing her Master’s thesis on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011 she took up a position as the Policy Lead at InternetNZ. In her first two months of work she was sent to Nairobi for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

❝ Everything is new in this realm. And it is important to all of us, yet obscure at the same time

“I had no idea about Internet governance when I started. It’s so dynamic and complex because of the different stakeholders, their motivations, the power structures they build up or rail against (diplomatically, of course). Everything is new in this realm. And it is important to all of us, yet obscure at the same time. It’s admittedly intriguing as a line of work. “Suffice to say it was overwhelming. You’ve got all these different stakeholders and you’re dealt with the task of trying to understand what they are driving at, what the terms of art they are using mean, what it means when they use them in the dialogue, for example. “The IGF is run by the United Nations, but at the IGF you’re not dealing with negotiation or treaty-making processes, which is what normally happens at the UN. At the IGF, everyone participates on ‘equal footing.’ It’s a conversation about Internet issues that leads to more conversations in different Internet governance ecosystems at regional and national levels. The idea is that governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia might work together to make better informed decisions when it comes to policies affecting the Internet.”

Trying experience Susan recalls her most trying experience while at InternetNZ, which was engaging in the legislative process for the Government Communications Security Bill and Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. “That was challenging, and, to be honest, frustrating. “When you have institutions like the Privacy Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Law Society, (and [InternetNZ]) all casting rock solid arguments against the legislative proposal, and nothing really changes, then it feels like it was out of the country’s hands from the start. “When … I [was] giving evidence before the select committee, when the Prime Minister started taking us down the ‘what if your neighbour is making a bomb’ line of reasoning, well I worked very hard to keep my face still. Doesn’t really happen in New Zealand, does it? The whole Continued on next page...

Our Profession, Our People

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Dan Parker wins Devil’s Own

On the move

Wellington lawyer Dan Parker is the 2015 Devil’s Own golf champion. Despite being down by four to eventual runner-up Michael Kensington after just six holes, Dan came back to end the day one up on the Dan Parker with the Devil’s Own Trophy he won at this year’s event. last hole. This year’s tournament attracted 122 participants, including four women golfers. LexisNexis provided a women’s trophy for the first time this year, and it was won by Annabel Lintermann. The 2015 Devil’s Own was about more than golf too. One of the highlights was a successful CPD session, where speakers from the tournament sponsors talked about the future of New Zealand business, conveyancing, insurance and the future of law. And Iain Hutcheson, attired in a full kilt, won the best dressed competition. The dates for next year’s competition have now Annabel Linterman and Tennille Burnside (both been set. It will be held from 23 to 25 September from Russell McVeagh), two of the women (see www.devilsown.org.nz). ▪ contestants with their prize haul.

Emma Monsellier has joined Davenports Harbour as a senior associate, primarily developing the employment practice from both contentious and non-contentious angles. With her commercial litigaEmma Monsellier tion background, Emma is also helping out the commercial team. Emma’s background in commercial litigation involved issues such as shareholder disputes, trust litigation, professional negligence claims and breach of contracts. Her most recent role before joining Davenports was head of employment at a firm based in the Channel Islands. Andrew Blair has joined Hollister-Jones Lellman of Tauranga as a consultant. Andrew has merged his legal practice with Hollister-Jones Lellman after being in sole practice for over 25 years. He will Andrew Blair continue to specialise in conveyancing, commercial and general practice. Continued on page 19...

Continued from previous age... thing took a lot out of me.” After spending three years away from home, and wanting to work on other Internet governance projects, Susan left New Zealand to return to the United States and set up a consulting practice in early 2014. But she then returned to New Zealand that September, and set up her business in Wellington. “I love my hometown – Kalamazoo, Michigan – and I got to spend time with family, but Wellington was a better place to do business. I also missed my kiwi friends and colleagues.” Already, Susan has been invited to speak on Internet governance and trade at events across the globe, including New York’s Columbia University and in Accra, Ghana. She is leading two different processes at the IGF – a discussion on Internet Protocol

version 6 and another on Network Neutrality – and she continues to work on building an online archive of IGF discussions to increase public access to knowledge. The project is called the “Friends of the IGF.”

On the cusp “We – you and I – were born before the commercial, residential Internet existed. Ex ante. Now we’re on the cusp, and everyone born today comes in ex post. “We are the people who are making decisions that will shape their future. I don’t know if lawmakers think about that very often. People tell me not to hold my breath, but I want politicians to acknowledge that the greater good might demand something different than the existing business models and structures they are familiar with, and which pay, in some form or another.

“The Internet does two things really well – disruption and convergence. This gives rise to uncertainty and vacuums, which people fight to fill. It’s important to stop and think about how to make socially positive policy when writing law for the Internet – and to make sure the law is written in a way that is mindful of the Internet’s realities. We have to think harder and learn new things.” Susan is now bidding farewell to her second home to take up a position in Washington DC that will see her continuing work in Internet governance. “I want to give a hug to New Zealand. I know it’s been said a million times, but New Zealand is a beautiful country and it has beautiful people. It’s a home away from home and I hope to one day return.” ▪

Our Profession, Our People

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Important day to celebrate who I am By Rogena Sterling In a 2015 Expert Meeting of the United Nations regarding intersex, the UN High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein stated that: “Too many people assume, without really thinking about it, that everyone can be fitted into two distinct and mutually exclusive categories: male and female … Unfortunately the myth that all human beings belong to two distinct and separate sexes is deep-rooted, and it contributes to the stigma, and even the taboo, attached to being intersex.” October 26 is Intersex Awareness Day. It is an important day for me to celebrate who I am. After only making sense of myself as an intersex person in my mid-thirties, it created some difficulties and challenges, but I have never felt more peace inside and comfortable than after accepting and living as my intersex identity. Intersex Awareness Day has a dual focus. First, it is a day to raise awareness of intersex; and second it is about reclaiming intersex as part of sex identity that has been taken from us over the many centuries. Intersex people’s lives are predominantly shrouded in secrecy and shame. This day enables awareness of intersex people who remain invisible and often unaware themselves. On celebrating this day, I aim to enlighten my fellows of the legal profession on both what intersex is, and the issues we face. So what is intersex? Intersex is an umbrella term of more than 30 variations (some of the common ones are

❝ Unfortunately the myth that all human beings belong to two distinct and separate sexes is deeprooted, and it contributes to the stigma, and even the taboo, attached to being intersex

listed at the end of the article). Intersex people have biological diversity of chromosomal, hormonal, and anatomical sexual features that are neither exclusively male nor female, but are typical of both at once or not clearly defined as either. Their features can also manifest themselves in secondary sexual characteristics such as muscle mass, hair distribution, breasts and stature as examples. Although there are no statistics, in surveying medical literature, an often quoted number is 1.7% of live births. However, once cryptorchidism and hypospadias are added, the average increases by another 1.8% to 3.5%. The history of intersex illustrates the historical struggles of sex, its nature, roles, and what sex can, should, and must mean. Through this struggle, intersex has moved between various states of mythical creatures, social abnormalities, and to Continued on next page...

CRIMINAL APPEALS PROCEEDS OF CRIME SENIOR bARRIStERS

Michele and Chris Wilkinson-Smith Criminal Appeals and Proceeds of Crime matters. For a confidential discussion about your client, call us on 09 377 4769 or email admin@defence.co.nz www.defence.co.nz

15198 AUCKLAND DEFENCE Ad FIN.indd 1

14/10/15 2:45 PM

Our Profession, Our People

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

medical pathologies. Currently, the vast majority of people who are intersex undergo sex-normalising treatment as an infant or child to maintain a sex binary of male and female. Since 2012, the UN Committee on Torture has stated that such treatment without the consent of the individual is torture. Yet this continues on a regular basis in New Zealand. This is a key human rights violation that affects the very integrity of one’s being. It causes physical and psychological impacts with life-long consequences including sterilisation, severe scarring, infections of the urinary tract, reduced or complete loss of sexual sensation, removal of natural hormones, dependency on medication, and a deep sense of violation of their person. As well as that, intersex people face other serious human rights violations. Another violation is infanticide. In many countries, like New Zealand, birth registration and obtaining identity documents do not recognise intersex. In addition to that is widespread discrimination in education, employment, health, sports and accessing public services. Moreover, we are not even counted in statistics, but forced into imposed categories of male or female. All of these are rarely discussed, let alone investigated or prosecuted. Intersex people, like myself, need the support of my fellows in the legal profession – the defenders of justice and human rights. We need space to exist biologically without individually unconsented unnecessary medical treatment, but we also need the ability to determine our identity whether it be expressed as male, female, both or neither. I am sure we all agree that sex discrimination is not acceptable in New Zealand. This includes intersex. ▪ Rogena Sterling is currently studying towards a PhD in law at Waikato University, having completed both an LLB and an LLM. The topic of Rogena’s doctoral thesis is Intersex and Identity within International Human Rights Law. Rogena plans to use the PhD to provide a foundation for better development of intersexed rights and also plans to gain admission to the bar. The ultimate goal is to be part of expanding transgender and intersex rights law and allow the existence of the intersexed identity.

Group & Individual Coaching

First Queenstown admission

Some of the more common intersex variations are: 5-alpha Reductase Deficiency, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), Aphallia, Clitoromegaly (large clitoris), Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), Gonadal Dysgenesis (partial and complete), Hypospadias/ Epispadias, Klinefelter Syndrome, Micropenis, Mosaicism involving ‘sex’ chromosomes, MRKH (mullerian agenesis; vaginal agenesis; congenital absence of vagina), Ova-Testes (formerly ‘true hermaphroditism’), Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS), Progestin Induced Virilisation, Swyer Syndrome, Turner Syndrome.

04 479 3843

Workshops www.selfmade.co.nz

Facilitation clarity ...

choice ...

• • • • • • • • •

Sam Buchan has become the first lawyer to be admitted in Queenstown. This “first” for one of New Zealand’s favourite visitor destinations came about as a result of a series of events. So much so that Sam describes it as an “alignment of the stars” that made him “super lucky to be the first person admitted in Queenstown”. Originally he was going to be admitted in Dunedin. Delays in the paperwork meant that he missed that ceremony. At about the same time, he was sending some papers to another lawyer, who mentioned that a High Court case was going to be heard in Queenstown. Although there is no High Court in Queenstown, there have been sittings in the town for around the last four years under the Invercargill Registry. So Sam wrote to the Invercargill Registry and contacted the New Zealand Law Society’s Otago branch, and Queenstown’s inaugural admission was organised, with Justice Gerald Nation presiding. Like the other High Court sittings, the admission ceremony was in the District Courthouse on 24 August. Sam graduated from Otago University in 2012. For the next two years he worked in television three-dimension graphics for a Dunedin-based company, with most of the work happening overseas. More than anything else, that work proved to Sam that what he really wanted to do was be a lawyer. So he joined G TODD LAW in Queenstown where he works around 50-50 on private client and resource management work. ▪

Leadership Development Team Building & Interaction Career Growth & Planning Lifting Productivity & Performance Building Presence and Impact Succession Planning Organisational Development Negotiating & Realising Change Building Resilience & Capacity

change ...

Martin Wilson Principal - Coach Phone 04 479 3843 coach@selfmade.co.nz

Our Profession, Our People

On the move

Continued from page 16...

Andrew Hough has returned to Grimshaw & Co as a senior associate. He specialises in civil and commercial litigation, construction law, insurance and reinsurance, and professional negligence. Andrew worked at Grimshaw & Co for seven years to 2011. Before his return, Andrew worked at two large law firms in Australia and Auckland, on a mixture Andrew Hough of commercial, insurance, reinsurance and local government cases. Andrew has managed both domestic and cross border disputes. He is also experienced in building litigation, dispute resolution and earthquake claims.

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Otago law students make ANIMAL moot grand final

The Employers & Manufacturers Association Northern Inc (EMA) has made four appointments or promotions. Charlotte Hatlauf is the new Assistant General Counsel, and Head of EMA Legal. Charlotte gained experience as a litigator in corporate firms, including employment and health and safety teams, before becoming a senior internal legal advisor. Matthew DearAmber Hosking (left) and Hugo Dobson, who were runners up in the recent Australasian ing has been promoted to senior solicitor, EMA animal law moot. Charlotte Hatlauf Legal (Auckland). Since joining EMA Legal in 2011, Matt has been advising on a wide range Otago law students Amber Hosking and Hugo Dobson placed second in the grand final of the 2015 Australia New Zealand Intervarsity Moot on of matters including collective bargaining, Animal Law (ANIMAL), which was held at the University of Melbourne exiting employees and in particular senior from 19-20 September. executives, advising on performance manThis is the second year that the competition has been running and agement programmes, and managing claims is Australasia’s only animal law moot competition. under the sleepover legislation following the This year, the focus of the moot was regarding misleading and Idea Service case. Persia Templeton has also deceptive conduct in relation to food labeling and the admissibility been promoted to senior solicitor, EMA Legal Matthew Dearing (Auckland). Persia has practised in a broad of evidence pursuant to “ag-gag laws”. There were 18 teams from around Australia, with Otago the only range of legal areas including employment New Zealand university competing. Otago came second after losing to law, intellectual property, defamation, Flinders University in the final and beating the University of Melbourne commercial and contract law. She provides and University of Tasmania in the quarter- and semi-finals respectively. advice on a broad spectrum of employment The competition is a joint initiative by the Animal Law Institute issues, including dispute resolution, reviewing and Voiceless Australia, with the aim of encouraging analysis and and drafting employment agreements and consideration of legal issues relating to animals. in-house policy documents. Alexandria Till has been appointed senior Persia Templeton solicitor, EMA Legal (Waikato). Based in the EMA Hamilton office, Alexandria joined EMA in 2015. Before that, she worked · Save time and money Legal Accounting Bureau Kathy Kell · Always know your trust account provides comprehensive, kathy@accountingbureau.co.nz in the commercial litigation is balanced and your month end accurate, efficient and timely Ph 09 444 1044 certificates are filed on time team of a multi-national law management of solicitors’ Fax 09 929 3203 · Our service is completely secure firm on a wide range of matwww.accountingbureau.co.nz and confidential trust accounts. · Trusted professionals with over ters including employment Outsourcing the management 20 years’ experience Alexandria Till law, construction, and real of your firm’s trust account Powered by juniorPartner. · 62 law firms currently use our Practice Management software you can trust. services has many advantages. estate disputes.

Our Profession, Our People

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Welcome to the profession One of the recent admission ceremonies featured all females, Justice Ailsa Duffy noted. The ceremony took place in the Hamilton High Court on 2 October, when Justice Duffy admitted five women: Jingchun Cao, Sophie Craig, Jesse Loe, Emma Rawson and Danielle Young

The New Zealand Law Society welcomes the following recently admitted lawyers to the profession:

Hamilton

Suzanne Jennifer Gledhill Laura Jane Hardcastle Gabrielle Florence Holdgate Louisa May Jackson Klevis Kllogjri Stephen Charles Laing James Ian Lansdown Siobhan Elizabeth Leonard James Peter Wallace Leslie Finn Henry Mrkusic Lowery Emma Rose Luxton Bonnie Sarah Mahon Nicholas Paul Masters Laura Meg Beard McGlone Tessa Alice Verberne McKeown Matthew William McMenamin Alistair Quang Nguyen Miller Elena Ana-Maria Mok Wellington Jessie Gwen Nelson Christine Jean Anderson David Owen Katherine Anna Louise Armstrong Hollie-Anne Lee Pedersen Georgina Rose Johnston Beasley Thomas Joseph Peterson Natalie Alison Sexton Brown Helen Rosemary Radersma Hannah Charlotte Checkley Natalie Hannah Randrup Paroma Chowdhury Clare Rosemary Ryan Richard James Clark Giancarlo Riccardo Salizzo Simon Francis Clark Karen Louise Samuel Caitlin Alexandra Pallot Craigie Christin Schetter Hannah Jayne Croucher Lisa Kylie Seddon Alexander John Cunningham Angus Stanley Macdonald Sharp Tony Alex Davis Amy Margaret Smith Freya Elizabeth Alison Dean Samuel Gordon Sygrove Amy Louise Dixon Kate Janine Tarawhiti Ruth Natasa Egermayer Sidney Stuart Taylor Guy James Hinton Finny Nicola Jane Yong Maria Fomicheva Jennifer Jan Young Edwina Adell Gillespie Donna Frances Watt Luke Edward Harker Gilmore Mikayla Louise Zandstra Helen Michelle Bond Cornelius Alewyn Johannes Botha Jingchun Cao Grant Robert Cawley Sophie Louise Craig Jasmine Findlater Henri Alexander Ten Hove Kyla Jayne Johansen Debbie Moana Kennedy Seil Kimberley Jesse Anne Loe Lauren Wei-Yi Ng Emma Elizabeth Rawson Steven John Stebbings Connor Samuel Taylor Danielle Lynette Young

Auckland Imogen Georgia Allan Thomas Andrew Anderson Scott William Archer Narina Prina Bali Tyler Rachel Bellingham Guy Robert Carne Bidwill Alexandra Nicole Blair Edward John Bowie Michelle Susan Bowie Thomas James Bragg Lucy Elizabeth Brittain Emily Frances Campbell Wing Cheong Chan Su Ying Miriam Chew Kiram Choi Jennifer Ellen Clifton Timothy James Conder John William Edward Connell Benjamin Michael Corbett Neferteri Salise Cristobal Michael James Peter Davidson Ivan Alexeevich Dorofeev Peter Henry Driscoll Rebecca Elise Eaton Sonsie Isobel Elliott Sarah Patricia Farnell Alexandra Charlotte Jane Flaus Brooke Simone Fong Harry Michael Forsythe Emma Rose Foster Christopher Ian Gibson Marianne Rose Gilling Mark Stuart Godfrey Lillie Patricia Greenslade Hermann Grobler Kishan Kumara Gunatunga

Emma Jane Haggas John Stewart te Harinui Hall Caroline Anne Hardey Marguerite Helen Harrington David Richard Hawk Laura Anne Hemingway Claudia Anne Herron Adam George Holden Paul Hong Rosa Mary Helena Hughes Stefan Andre Jammes Trishna Kanji Genevieve Sara Kaye Israt Jarin Khan HoJon Kim Neuton Phillip Arundel Whitiawa Lambert Agnes Iulia Maeu Lavea Levi Michelle Liu George Brian Meale Zaid Mohammed Elizabeth Hannah Morrison-Jones Cornelia Lifan Mu Lucinda Baillie Ewen Nelson Rachael Jane Nickels Hyeshin Oh Tristan Guinto Osongco Michelle Tara Pereira Francesca Rosamond Priest Helen Marie Pryde Olivia Mei Rabindran Mitchell Kane Ropati In Sook Elizabeth Scorgie Rebecca Frances Selby Dhayana Sena Yiming Shao Avijit Singh Sam George Smith Dunja Sumar Natasha Maree Sutcliffe Anthony Paul Syder Hamish Jeffrey Tait Sharleen Patricia Te Runa Siaosi Aofia Tofi India Georgiana Townsend Violeta Theresa Tuyay Jerome William Lee Webby Jasmin-Maree Colleen Wilford Catherine Emily Wiseman Tina Tianran Xu Jason Yang

Our Profession, Our People

The first meeting at the new Canterbury-Westland branch office was this standards committee (from left) Tim Twomey, Susan Rowe, David Bremner (lay member), Valerie McTurk (legal standards officer), Richard Johnstone (convenor), James Rapley, Peter Maciaszek (deputy convenor) and Bede Rolton.

Branch returns to preearthquake address The New Zealand Law Society’s Canterbury-Westland branch has just moved into its new offices. This marks a return to its address at 307 Durham Street, which the branch was forced to vacate following the major earthquake on 22 February 2011. The Canterbury-Westland branch’s premises were sufficiently damaged in the earthquake that the building was demolished. A completely new building now stands in its place, and the Law Society owns the middle floor of the three-storey building. The shift from the branch’s temporary premises began on Friday 9 October and continued the next day. By Monday 12 October the branch was operational in its new home, with just a few IT issues still to be sorted out. The new building meets the very latest design standards for earthquake resistance. ▪

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

The Canterbury-Westland branch sign at the new offices.

Auckland library relocation The New Zealand Law Society’s Auckland library will see its staff and some of its resources relocated in mid November. This is happening because the Ministry of Justice is building a new jury capable courtroom and a conference room on the lower ground floor of the Auckland High Court using part of the present Law Society Library space. The library staff and some resources will be relocated to the Auckland District Court, and the library will operate out of both the High Court and District Court premises. The texts will be shelved in the District Court Library on the 3rd floor of the District Court and practitioners will have access from 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday. The journals will be moved to an area on the 4th floor at the District Court, where the library staff will be housed. Staff will be available to assist lawyers between 8.30am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Access to the databases, parliamentary materials and law reports at the High Court will be available 24/7 via the Anzac Ave door, using a door card. You will need to obtain a door card from the library, if you do not have one already. Further information about the relocation is available on the NZLS website Library section. ▪

John Upton LLM (Hons) QC

In addition to his advocacy work, John Upton welcomes appointments as an arbitrator or mediator. jou@capitalchambers.co.nz (04) 472 5804 · www.capitalchambers.co.nz

Practising Well

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Vicarious trauma — the quiet intruder, part 2 By Dr Helen Austin Vicarious trauma or secondary traumatic stress refers to the cumulative effects of exposure to the traumatic experiences and distress of others, as described in my first article (see LawTalk 873, 11 September 2015). Those cases, images and interactions that stick in your mind and the negative impact that they can have on your worldview and day-to-day functioning. The examples given in the first article may be more applicable to those working in the area of criminal law, but those in other specialties such as conveyancing, immigration, commercial and family law may also be exposed to considerable client distress and, with it, the associated risk of secondary traumatic stress. For example, in Canterbury, ongoing issues related to the Christchurch earthquakes continue to cause marked distress not only to clients, but also to practitioners who may be caught up in their own difficulties. Workplaces may also be viewed as more stressful in general with clients who have greater expectations and practitioners being aware of the ever-present risk of being subject to a complaint.

Helping others Most people go into the practice of law with a view to helping others but sometimes helping people can take its toll. This is not always recognised and even if it is there remains a stigma that prevents people from speaking out or seeking help, with concerns about confidentiality, reputation and registration. Often it is not until a complaint is received or the damage is done that an issue is identified. Until there is a change in this view and a more widespread and proactive approach to maintaining well-being, those in the legal profession will continue to experience higher rates of depression, anxiety and other mental health issues than

the general population. Vi c a r i o u s t ra u m a is one factor that can impact on well-being. The first article looked at the impact that vicarious trauma may have on individuals and some of Dr Helen Austin the research in this area relevant to the legal profession. This article will consider who may be more vulnerable to vicarious trauma and ways in which the impact of this can be mitigated.

Vulnerability Since the concept of vicarious trauma was first described in 1990 there have been a number of studies across a range of professional groups which have attempted to identify who may be more at risk or more vulnerable to the effects of being exposed to other people’s trauma. Variables such as support, level of experience and personal history of trauma have all been investigated with some inconsistency in the findings. Overall, however, the research suggests that those who lack good social support, those who are early on in their career and those with a personal history of trauma are more vulnerable. Research has shown that certain types of case are more likely to be associated with vicarious trauma. Not surprisingly cases involving violence towards children have a greater impact, as do those where you can identify in some way with the victim, for example “it could have been my partner”.

Mitigation Turning now to what steps or processes may be put in place to mitigate the effects of exposure to vicarious trauma, Pearlman and Saakvitne, two of the authors who first wrote about this concept, have broken this down into categories of awareness, balance and connectivity, across the realms of

personal, professional and organisational. Awareness refers to education, acknowledgement and exploration of the potential impact of vicarious trauma, which can facilitate open discussion. People are often aware of the experience but do not have a name for it. It is important not to over-pathologise, but having an understanding of what is occurring can be beneficial. Some law schools in the United States now incorporate education about vicarious trauma into their programmes. Some employers have implemented initiatives in this area in response to health and safety requirements and also in recognition of the impact that vicarious trauma can have on staff burnout, absenteeism and staff retention. For example, in Australia the County Court of Victoria has implemented the Supporting Judicial Resilience Program, a pilot programme for judges utilising a model of regular supervision with psychiatrists and psychologists. Judge Felicity Hampel noted in the September 2015 Law Institute of Victoria Journal: “We can no longer ignore the evidence of the risk to judges and court staff of vicarious trauma or other consequences of stress. We should not wait for a catastrophic breakdown before doing something about it”. Strategies that can aid awareness on a personal level are professional supervision and peer review/support, although this may be limited as many in the legal profession work in relative isolation and there can be an environment of competitiveness.

Professional supervision Professional supervision is a proactive approach that involves meeting with a suitably qualified colleague or other professional on a regular basis, usually monthly. Unfortunately there is a misperception that supervision is for those who are still in training or those who are weak, incompetent or ethically unsound. On the contrary, being prepared to make time to reflect upon your practice and identify your vulnerabilities requires strength, maturity and commitment. Supervision provides an opportunity to process and make sense of difficult experiences from the work environment and can cast a different perspective on problematic areas of practice. Understanding why certain clients or

Practising Well

Balance is also important in mitigating potential negative effects from exposure to the trauma and the distress of others. This includes trying to ensure balancing work with other aspects of life and being involved in interests and creative activities outside of law. The medical and legal professions have long been associated with working long hours, partly through necessity but also as an expectation, often at the expense of personal and family life. Working longer does not necessarily mean working better or more productively and over working can be a response to vicarious trauma or can be a sign of other problems. Balancing caseloads with colleagues is helpful and balancing the type of case in your workload is important, for example not solely focusing on cases of child abuse.

Connectivity refers to connecting and communicating with others at home, in the workplace and in the community. Vicarious trauma from working in a field such as law can create negativity and cynicism with cognitive distortions around trust and safety. You can readily develop beliefs that others are manipulative and not to be trusted and to overestimate the likelihood of negative events arising. Connecting with community groups and activities can help to balance this perspective and provide a sense of altruism that may otherwise be absent. Vicarious trauma does not affect everyone in the legal profession but it is worthy of recognition and discussion. Creating an environment that acknowledges the emotional and cognitive impact of working in a field that can be stressful and challenging as well as rewarding, is an important step in leading to a greater sense of wellbeing. Healthy Mind, Healthy Body, Healthy Practice is a philosophy that I would fully endorse. ▪ Dr Helen Austin is a consultant forensic psychiatrist. Over her 10 years of practice in this area, she has developed an interest in the effects of exposure to traumatic material in the occupational setting and the associated concepts of burnout and resilience. She has conducted research in this area and has spoken at conferences and courses on this topic. She runs a service named MindFix New Zealand Limited (www.mindfix.co.nz) and is now offering one-to-one supervision and support to professionals in a confidential setting with flexible appointment times. She is also available to provide small group workshops or seminars on this topic on request.

I am interested in the views of those in the legal profession with regards to the concept of vicarious trauma and would be interested to hear your opinion. Please don’t hesitate to contact me at helen@mindfix. co.nz to share your views.

Balance

Connectivity

cases “push your buttons” can allow you to take a different approach. Communication problems are at the heart of many complaints and a better understanding of what is really going on in the lawyer/client dynamic may enhance communication. Professional supervision can be provided by a variety of professionals with a range of skills and qualifications, including counsellors, social workers, nurses, psychologists and psychiatrists. One of the key elements to successful supervision is the development of an effective collaborative working relationship with an emphasis on trust, openness and confidentiality. The supervisee is expected to prepare for supervision between sessions and to set the agenda by bringing along particular cases or problems, which may involve clients, colleagues or organisational issues. Different models can be utilised to explore the issue such as the “Five Realms” as described by David Owen. This was devised for medical practitioners but the model readily adapts to the legal profession. The five realms for exploration are the presenting problem (which may be exposure to a traumatic case); the client (who may be very distressed or traumatised); the lawyer; the supervisory relationship and the social or organisational context. All five realms provide different perspectives that can enhance understanding and awareness and reduce any negative impact from exposure to traumatic material.

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

SMART TIMESHEETS

STEP INTO THE FUTURE Actionstep provides smart suggestions to help you fill in the gaps in your timesheets It does this automatically by checking your calendar, tasks, matters, documents, and other system activity – saving you time and money Actionstep has everything you need to run a modern law practice All for just $60/user/month

www.actionstep.com

Life in the law

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Four little online irritants By Geoff Adlam Careful with that gavel “Campervan dispute goes to court” says the headline on the Stuff website. And there’s a picture of a nicely polished wooden hammer with the helpful caption “Gavel”. Ah. This must be a case in the United States. But no. It’s a story from the Southland Times (28 September) about a dispute which ended up in our High Court before Justice Mander. The problem is, of course, that New Zealand judges have never used gavels. Never. You would not know that by browsing the website of any organisation which publishes New Zealand news. Gavels abound. Stuff, Radio New Zealand, Radio Live, NBR Online, NZME, TVNZ, TV3, NewstalkZB … Don’t journalists (or illustrations editors) go to court any more? But wait; apparently they do. Here’s an item from Adam Walker on the NewstalkZB website (18 September), headed “Long live the small town court house”. And the author notes that he has had “the joy or the misfortune … to visit nearly 20 courts around the country.” It’s illustrated with … a gavel. And, oh dear, even the Resource Management Law Association Inc has fallen into the trap. Its “Obiter” website section (www.rmla.org.nz/obiter) features a cute little animated graphic of a judge thrashing the desk in front of him with a gavel. It gets worse: at least a dozen New Zealand law firms have pictures of gavels on their websites. They shall remain anonymous. Judge Peter Spiller’s New Zealand Legal Dictionary, 8th edition (LexisNexis, 2015) does not even define the word. Its predecessor, Mozley & Whiteley’s Law Dictionary New Zealand edition (Butterworths, 1964), defines “Gaval” but that’s a completely different term. An engrossing search on the Papers Past website of old New Zealand newspapers shows gavels have only been used in this country by people such as Masons and auctioneers. Never in our courts. “I have never heard of gavels being used in New Zealand courtrooms – and all judges with whom I have ever discussed the issue have said the same,” says New Zealand legal historian and University of Canterbury law professor Jeremy Finn. The question is, how on earth did gavels become an image of our courts and our justice system? It’s safe to assume we can blame the Americans. Duhaime’s Law Dictionary defines “gavel” as “a wooden mallet used by a judge to bring proceedings to a start or to an end or to command attention in his or her court”. A helpful note then states: “Although used in American or Chinese courts, the gavel is

Geoff Adlam

❝ We’re out to stop this ignorant practice ... Send your candidates for the roster of shame to us at gavelbusters@ slaw.ca

not used in British, Canadian, New Zealand or Australian courts.” “Gavel irritation” is becoming widespread. “Although they’re often seen in cartoons and TV programmes and mentioned in almost everything else involving judges, the one place you won’t see a gavel is an English or Welsh courtroom – they are not used there and have never been used in the criminal courts,” politely says the official website of the English Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. The Canadian law librarians’ website Slaw is more direct: “Here’s the thing: Canadian courts don’t use gavels. Canadian courts have never used gavels. Gavels are American. But you’ll see dozens of Canadian websites – even government websites – using the gavel to symbolise law. We’re out to stop this ignorant practice,” it proclaims on a special Gavel Busters section. “Send your candidates for the roster of shame to us at gavelbusters@slaw.ca”. That’s enough about gavels. LawTalk has no plans for a New Zealand roster of shame. We’ll just continue to shake our heads sadly … and move on to another little online irritant.

Practising hard in your legal practice “Months earlier her practicing certificate, which would have allowed her to work as a lawyer, was refused.” – New Zealand Herald (26 February 2015). What’s wrong with this? If you’re American, nothing. If you’re trying to support New Zealand English, “practicing” is not spelt correctly. The Herald is certainly not alone in having occasional problems with “practice”. In almost every issue of LawTalk there has been a behind-the-scenes correction of “practice” in one of its forms. It’s one of those tricky little words and – as noted above – correct usage depends on where you are living. Grammar and spelling rules are rapidly dispersing as Wikipedia and thousands of

Life in the law

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

A highly photogenic polished wooden gavel ... of the sort never used in New Zealand courts.

“definitive” sites appear on the internet. However, the Oxford English Dictionary is still seen as an extremely influential authority on our language and it’s worth noting what Oxford says: “Practice” is the correct spelling of the noun in both British and US English and it is also the spelling of the verb in US English. However, in British English (which we still follow here in New Zealand), the verb should be spelled “practise”. We can also refer to the New Zealand Law Style Guide, 2nd edition (Thomson Reuters, 2011) at 1.1.1(b): “New Zealand spelling, as opposed to American or Australian, is to be used. For reference to New Zealand spelling, see the latest edition of the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary.” So, New Zealand lawyers are issued practising certificates by the New Zealand Law Society. Some practise property law, while others have a legal practice built around family law. Or, easy to remember: you practise singing.

Using your judgement to write that judgment This is not hard for lawyers. All law students have probably had it drilled into them after the first month that a “judgment” is issued by a court. As defined by the New Zealand Legal Dictionary, 8th edition (LexisNexis, 2015): “Judgment: The sentence or order of the court in a civil or criminal proceeding.” However, how about this sentence from a Press story on the Stuff website on 6 October (“Leaky units at Terrace Downs in court”): “In a judgement on September 25, he said the claimants had fixed their pleadings so the alleged negligence was within the time period allowed.”

Enter the New Zealand Law Style Guide: “Note that when referring to the decision of a court, ‘judgment’ is spelt without an ‘e’.” Does it really matter? Yes: let’s all try to agree on conventions and a common way of expressing ourselves. It eliminates confusion, particularly in the law where shared understanding is crucial. A judgment is quite a different thing from judgement. The New Zealand Law Style Guide was funded by the Law Foundation and it has been money very well spent. It has now been adopted by all law schools, publishers of law reports and journals, and most of our courts. Not by the media unfortunately.

She Pleaded and Pled – but she can’t have Plead It’s Stuff again (28 September): “Thomas Alexander Dyson, 24, plead guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery and driving with a breath-alcohol level of 992mcg …” No. The past tense of “to plead” is either “pleaded” or “pled” – but it’s not “plead”. Oxford English Dictionary has both “pleaded” and “pled” recorded. Contrary to some suggestions, “pled” is not an Americanism; Edmund Spenser is recorded as using it in 1596. Unfortunately some writers appear to be trying to introduce a third form of the past tense with “plead”. And they’re happy to mix things up to keep us guessing. A NZ Herald story on 22 September (“Mum pleads guilty to dangerous driving”) began “A Taranaki mother has pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving …” but five paragraphs later stated: “She plead guilty to all four charges …”. Sigh. ▪

Life in the law

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Perceived supply of Australian law graduates concerns Every year about 1,600 people graduate LLB or LLB (Hons) from New Zealand’s law schools. Every year about 900 new lawyers are admitted. And every year about 550 of those new lawyers take out a practising certificate. Does that mean that two-thirds of law graduates are unable to get work as lawyers? Are there too many law graduates in New Zealand? Do a lot of the law graduates move into other fields? How many are completing degrees in other subjects as well? How many work in law-related fields but don’t need a practising certificate? It’s an area with many unknowns and, perhaps unsurprisingly, over the Tasman in Australia the same questions are being asked. Concern at the situation led the Law Society of New South Wales to establish a working group to look at the scale of the problem and the resulting outlook for viability of the profession. The working group report, at the end of 2014, found there was a “high level of anxiety” within the legal profession about the number of law graduates emerging from NSW universities. Law students were very concerned about employment prospects. However, the working group concluded that while there were some gaps in the data, it appeared the NSW law graduates were “not exceeding” new entrants to the NSW profession.

Key conclusion One of the key conclusions could probably have been written about New Zealand: “There is a lot of anecdotal evidence about the oversupply of law graduates, but the common thread is the need for a strong foundation of evidence about where law graduates are going and whether they want a legal career.” While the research continues, a couple of developments have brought the number of law graduates and those who employ or don’t employ them into focus again. These don’t appear to have emerged in New Zealand, but they are indicators of strong competition for legal jobs in Australia at least.

❝ There was a ‘high level of anxiety’ within the legal profession about the number of law graduates emerging from NSW universities

New Adelaide law firm Adlawgroup announced a two-year “employment programme” for law graduates in June this year. What aroused the ire of many was that the graduates were expected to pay Adlawgroup $22,000 in advance to participate. In South Australia law graduates must be employed for two years before they can obtain an unrestricted practising certificate. Uproar followed. The Law Society of South Australia began an inquiry as did Australia’s Fair Work Ombudsman. On 21 September the Law Society announced that following its inquiry, the firm had now decided not to charge participants an up-front fee. “This is a significant shift from Adlawgroup’s earlier letter to the Law Society in July, which stated that employees of the program were to be charged a mandatory fee of $22,000. It also appears that Adlawgroup will operate more as an employment agency rather than a law firm, and source employment for lawyers in law practices,” the Law Society said in a statement. One of the more interested parties has been the Australian Law Students’ Association (ALSA). It was active in criticising the Adlawgroup plans, with spokesperson Marie Iskander describing the business model as “quite exploitative” and taking advantage of an oversupply of graduates. ALSA has been a prominent participant in another development in the legal employment field: unpaid internships. Last month it provided extensive feedback to

Life in the law Australia’s Productivity Commission on the issue. Referencing its recent National Advocacy Survey, ALSA found that 66% of 67 respondents had engaged in unpaid work experience at some stage of their degree or since graduating. About half of these felt their unpaid internship had not helped them obtain a paid position. “The phenomenon of unpaid work experience placements is certainly not new,” the ALSA submission says. “However, ALSA is aware of a growing number of larger and mid-sized law firms moving away from remunerating students and graduates in favour of offering unpaid positions. Alongside this change, firms are requiring students to commit more time to their placements. Given the status of the legal profession’s employment market, ALSA is concerned that these firms are exploiting students who are desperate to remain competitive. Moreover, ALSA is concerned that with the continued increase in the supply of law graduates, this practice will also increase.”

Indicator While anecdote and a lack of definitive data cloud the picture (ALSA’s survey received 106 responses in total), one indicator of some of the problems facing would-be lawyers and those who provide them with work experience came when Australia’s Federal Circuit Court decided that Melbourne lawyer Graeme Efron would have to provide 11 months back pay to a law student. In Finberg v Efron [2015] FCCA 2470 (11 September 2015), Judge Suzanne Jones found Efron & Associates had not paid Saul Finberg his proper wages and superannuation contributions while he was employed from March 2013 to February 2014. It appears that Mr Finberg approached Mr Efron with the objective of gaining an opportunity to gain experience in a law firm while completing his law degree. Judge Jones was satisfied that Mr Finberg was engaged in a range of legal work requiring the exercise of basic legal skills, and always under the supervision of senior solicitors. She decided that he was not paid the appropriate wage rates. Mr Finberg was apparently paid $10 an hour – well away from the appropriate classification under the applicable employment award. The matter will return to court in December to determine the amount owed to Mr Finberg – who is claiming $28,883 plus interest and pecuniary penalties. ▪

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Notable quotes ❝ You are a rural man, a duck shooting man and a gun-using man and have previously been involved in offending of a similar type ... you more than most should have acted responsibly. What’s clear is you will have to disclose your conviction. What’s not clear is whether such a conviction will prevent entry to a particular country.” — Judge Dominic Flatley declines an application by former All Black Andrew Hore in Alexandra District Court for discharge without conviction. Hore was convicted of supplying a firearm to an unlicensed person, 10 years after being convicted of breaching the Marine Mammals Protection Act. An appeal against the District Court decision was dismissed by the High Court. ❝ I am a father and a grandfather and I can only guess how the whānau is feeling, but I’m also a judge and have to keep order in this court.” — Justice Brewer addresses relatives of three-year-old Moko Rangitoheriri in Rotorua High Court before two people accused of his murder were called to the dock. ❝ As for his legal career, it’s over. What he hopes to do is complete his sentence and go into charity work – that’s occupied so much of his time in the last 20 years.” — Angus Bunyan, counsel for international lawyer Peter Barnett, 44, who has been given a 16-week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, after pleading guilty in London Magistrates’ Court to six counts of fraud by false representation. Barnett dodged paying full fares on the railway for 660 days of travel by cheating the system. ❝ Yeah, a bit. But I’m not going to miss the clients.” — Retiring Ottawa criminal lawyer Gerry White responds to a question on whether he is going to miss being a lawyer. ❝ Viewers are left with the impression of, who needs a law degree to be a lawyer? A few acting lessons or some reruns of Law and Order should do the trick. This sends a very dangerous message about what it takes to be a lawyer.” — Nader Anise, executive director of the American Lawyers Public Image Association, comments unfavourably on new Fox TV legal comedy The Grinder. ❝ The twetts [sic], blogs and other childish distractions of Mr X aren’t in line with the principles of the profession: courtesy and respect.” — The Mâcon, France, Bar Association bans an unnamed lawyer (who tweets under the Twitter handle Herminator71) from tweeting. He later received many supportive tweets, although one Twitter user responded: “D’un autre côté, c’est vrai: les touètes ... euh … les twetts, c’es vraiment infantile.” (“On the other hand, it’s true: the tweets … umm … the twetts, really are childish”). ❝ The offence in effect is buying ice cream in a public place. The biggest controversy was whether it should be a choc-top or a vanilla ice cream.” — Queensland lawyer Bill Potts after successfully defending two of five men charged under Queensland’s anti-association laws. They were all arrested and charged while leaving a Surfers Paradise ice cream shop during a holiday with their families.

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

How to engage in reflective practice Developing the reflective practitioner within By Ken Trass Engaging with professional learning is essential for maintaining our competence for the benefit of the client, ourselves and the firm. One way of doing this is through reflective practice. The main difference between private, personal reflection and formalised “reflective practice” as a tool for learning is providing evidence of the reflection and activating it within the bounds of your professional context. At the heart of the CPD scheme is a lawyer’s continuing professional development plan and record (CPDPR). The CPDPR is where each practitioner takes personal responsibility for documenting their learning and how it relates to their initial professional development goals. However, it is not just a record of what was learnt but why this learning was worth engaging in and, most importantly, what will be done with it. Over the last few months I’ve engaged with many lawyers, especially in supporting the development of reflective practice and how to get the best out of reflection for the purposes of documenting the CPDPR and for growing professionally. While many lawyers are well on their way to applying a deep understanding of the benefits of reflective practice for their own learning, a greater number could benefit from developing this professional tool further.

What is reflective practice? Simply put, reflective practice is about thinking about the why and how of learning activities and the action to take as a result. We can view the reflective practitioner as having developed this into four discrete stages. The ability to: ▪▪ assimilate new learning; ▪▪ relate it to what they already know; ▪▪ adapt it for their own purposes; and ▪▪ transform thought into action.1 Engaging in reflective practice for your CPDPR requires setting aside time. This, of course, is easier said than done. However, we invest time to better our clients’ prospects and we should do the same for ourselves. Reflective practice is valuable as it is suggested that, over time, those who use this technique tend to develop greater levels of creativity, critical thinking skills and metacognitive ability – that is, their ability to think about their own thinking – and become more valuable employees and practitioners as a result. The first stage is to examine what you learnt and think about how this fits within the context of your professional life. This examination can be at many levels: your specialist

technical knowledge, your role within your workplace, or against a backdrop of your career to date and you as a professional.

Ask what was learnt Finding out what was valuable and, what wasn’t, is the important next step. When you complete your learning reflections don’t Ken Trass just notate what you gained from the activity or what was positive, but also consider reflecting on what you didn’t know, what gaps became apparent in your practice and, the most important question to pose, against all of your reflections, is why.

Ask why was this important The third phase is now thinking your way through what this learning could be useful for. Could the learning be: developed further, utilised in your own practice, added it to existing structures, or did it highlight firm activities that are no longer viewed as best practice?

Question how you will I use this Ask who will benefit Now that you’ve thought about all of this, it’s time to take action. Again, this can be realised in many different ways. But this stage is a future focused one.

Think about your next steps

Types of Reflective Statements As discussed, being reflective in a professional context is as much about looking forward as it is about looking back. Equally, reflection about your learning can also be viewed more broadly than just what the learning means to what you will do. You can also be reflective on how the new learning makes you feel, how it impacts on others and what it might mean for future planning for the profession. As we work in a people-oriented environment, these kind of reflections are very important. Below are four different approaches to forming reflective statements:

Retrospective ▪▪ “I realise that I was not always recognising this within my firm …” ▪▪ “I now appreciate that I didn’t really understand how to apply ...”

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Inward and outward looking ▪▪ “This course confirmed that I don’t feel comfortable with …” ▪▪ “My team would benefit from looking at this because …” ▪▪ “I noticed at the courses that others on my table employed a different technique that was more efficient …”

Future focused ▪▪ “Next time I come across a case like this I will …” ▪▪ “In light of this learning I’m going to invest in more training because …” ▪▪ “Strategically we’ll need to place our energy into …” ▪▪ “I will now work to develop a more robust …” In many senses reflective practice almost becomes like a mini goal setting exercise where you decide what you will now do with this knowledge. A reflective practitioner is continually looking for getting the best value out of professional learning opportunities.

Leading reflectively As a leader, developing reflective practice techniques can be of benefit to your firm. Many appraisal management systems and business self-review models take a reflective approach to goal assessment. In fact reflective techniques can be a powerful tool to help with a range of business decisions, including: ▪▪ appraisal discussions; ▪▪ resource allocation to support learning; ▪▪ identifying and promoting the unique position of the firm; and ▪▪ ensuring that their practice stays competitive. In understanding how to engage in reflective practice we create an opportunity to continually improve our competence through learning. This benefits not only our own self-esteem as a professional but the profession itself and, importantly, the experience of the client. Why would we not think about that? For more on how to engage in reflective practice, see the resources at www. lawsociety.org.nz/CPD or feel free to contact Ken Trass at Ken.Trass@lawsociety.org.nz. ▪ Ken Trass is the New Zealand Law Society’s Professional Development Manager. 1 http://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/Externship%20 Program/developingreflectivepractice.pdf

My audit, your voice As many of you are well aware, during October I conducted an audit of practitioners CPDPRs (CPD plan and record). This audit was educationally focused and my feedback to you all was designed to provoke and provide questions in regards to your CPDPR. Your feedback and comments helped shape this article on reflective practice. Here is a selection of your comments, both positive and negative about the audit process and the feedback you received. ▪▪ “… I was not expecting such a personal response … I very much appreciated it!” ▪▪ “I’m very grateful for your feedback … I must admit … I was too eager to get the form submitted online and I overlooked how important reflection on learning and the articulation of the same are in the CPDPR process … It’s been a great learning experience …” ▪▪ “… as I was preparing the material to send to you I had almost the same thoughts as you (my reflections, in all honesty, were to ‘tick the compliance box’). There is no doubt that I would get more from my learning if I spent more time considering what I got out of it and how it helped – this year I will do that better. Again – thanks for taking the time to comment. It is constructive …” ▪▪ “I’m about to review my staff ’s CPDPR plans, and your questions will be useful in that context …” ▪▪ “… I will take your suggestions on board for improving the reflective component going forward. I’ve had difficulty completing that part before … your email was both timely and helpful.” ▪▪ “Surely it is a better use of your time to audit new additions to the profession, rather than the likes of me – I mean, really?” ▪▪ “Thanks for your pleasant email … the implementation of a compulsory CPD system for lawyers has been a success, not only in terms of giving lawyers the chance to keep updated with the ever-changing law, but it has encouraged me to learn and develop my knowledge in areas that maybe outside my scope of expertise.” ▪▪ “Having worked in the UK … (where the CPD requirements are significant) ... I am glad to see it become part of the NZ landscape too.” ▪▪ “… I will do what I have always done – read. I see no point in the CPD programme and find the scheme ridiculous and insulting.” ▪▪ “I really appreciate your feedback on the reflective statements ... I like the idea of combining the retrospective and future focused reflection, which could result in an interesting study of how one’s thinking changes and what kind of information or presentation influences an individual.” ▪▪ “… we used your comments on reflective practice for a staff training session … it led to some significant team discussions – who thought an audit could yield such positivity! Thank you.” Many thanks to the professionals who agreed to share their feedback on this year’s audit process. In moving forward, as we look towards the end of the next CPD Year (March 2016), please put some time aside to consider why your learning has been important and how this has developed you as a professional. As always, if you have any questions about CPD, please do not hesitate to contact me.

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

New books Crimes Act 1961, 20th edition The 20th annual consolidation of the Crimes Act is current up to 28 August 2015. The book contains editorial and history notes and a consolidated New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. LexisNexis NZ Ltd, September 2015, 978-1927313-21-3, 444 pages, paperback, $65 (GST included, p&h excluded).

Health Law in New Zealand General Editors Peter Skegg and Ron Paterson This replaces Medical Law in New Zealand, published in 2006. The general editors and many of the authors are the same. The editors say a change in title is appropriate as the new book includes a major section on public health law, taking it well beyond the traditional ambit of medical law. The law is stated as at 30 November 2014. Thomson Reuters New Zealand Ltd, September 2015, 9780-864729-43-9, 1,227 pages, paperback and e-book, $205 (GST and p&h excluded).

Property Law Statutes, 9th edition Consolidated up to 1 August 2015 this contains nine statutes and the Land Transfer Regulations 2002 and Unit Titles Regulations 2011. There are no history notes. LexisNexis NZ Ltd, October 2015, 978-1927313-44-2, 799 pages, paperback, $65 (GST included, p&h excluded).

Legal information

Directors Powers and Duties, 2nd edition B Y P E T E R WAT T S Reviewed by Jeremy Browne When I saw that a new edition of Directors’ Powers and Duties had been published, I was eager to get my hands on a copy. I had on a number of occasions had cause to use the first edition (2009) and always found it to have the answers to the particular problem I was struggling with. I had previously cited passages from the book to courts and tribunals and on each occasion received a warm response from the bench. The second edition is really an update of the first rather than being a completely re-written text. The first and second editions have exactly the same 13 chapters and are similar in length: 369 pages of text for the first edition and 358 pages of text for the second edition. A comparison of the indexes shows that there are only a handful of changes in the second edition compared to the first (I count seven new sections and three old sections removed). Having said that, there have been a surprising number of legal developments in the last six years and so the new edition – which states the law as at February this year – is clearly justified. The book is blessed with a good index, a comprehensive list of cases, and a logical structure – all must-haves in order to find what you are looking for. The book also quite clearly

Unit Titles Law and Practice, 2nd edition By Thomas Gibbons Author Thomas Gibbons says a second edition is needed because of the Amendment Act and a large number of new cases which have provided important clarification on aspects of the 2010 Act and its predecessor. His objective is to provide practical guidance on the law, which is stated as at 31 July 2015. LexisNexis NZ Ltd, September 2015, 978-1-927313-34-3, 337 pages, paperback and e-book, $160 (GST included, p&h excluded).

NZ Charity & Legal Gazette, 40th edition Editor Michael Woolf This handy annual guide to New Zealand charities has reached the milestone of its 40th edition. The Gazette is distributed free to all members of the Family Law Section and Property Law Sections. The Production House Ltd, October 2015, ISSN 1179-2930, paperback, $21.70 (GST and p&h included).

Legal information states what it is about (directors’ powers and duties, particularly in the context of the Companies Act 1993) and what it is not about (management theories, criminal liability, obligations of directors in relation to securities law, etc). This is a book for lawyers featuring a lucid discussion on the particular areas of law. In patches it does become a little academic – where the law is unclear or where it is of interest to the author! (There are a number of P Watts articles or texts cited!) For instance, there is an in-depth discussion of the theoretical question of whether New Zealand company law has director primacy or shareholder primacy. One of the real strengths of the book is the amount of foreign cases cited. Even though this is a New Zealand text, and focuses on New Zealand law – in particular on the Companies Act 1993 – there is liberal reference to authorities from other common law jurisdictions. Such cases may not be easy to find otherwise as they are not cited in other New Zealand practitioner-focused texts on the topic. By way of example, in chapter 11 (which concerns duties owed to shareholders and the duty to act for a proper purpose) there are more than 50 Australian, and more than 50 English authorities cited. There are also cases cited from the United States, Canada, Scotland and, of course, New Zealand. The foreign case law adds great richness to the text. New Zealand being such a small jurisdiction, many of the issues have not been considered as they have overseas. There is a fantastic amount of detail in such a small book. When reading through it, I gained the distinct impression that I was sitting and learning at the feet of a real expert. And that of course is what Peter Watts QC is. I commend this book to everyone who practises in the field of company law – whether contentious or non-contentious. As a jack of all trades type litigator in a smaller provincial centre, I have found the first edition, and now the second, to be an invaluable resource. ▪ Directors’ Powers and Duties, 2nd edition, LexisNexis NZ Ltd, May 2015, 978-1-92722798-5, 373 pages, paperback and e-bok, $195 (GST included, p&h excluded). Jeremy Browne is a director of Whangarei law firm Henderson Reeves Connell Rishworth. He practises in all areas of civil and employment litigation, and estate and relationship property litigation.

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Insurance Claims in New Zealand B Y PA U L M I C H A L I K A N D CHRISTOPHER BOYS Reviewed by Rebecca Scott Insurance Claims in New Zealand aims to bring a fresh, approachable perspective to scholarship on insurance law. It delivers on its promise, which is to provide guidance for anyone dealing with contentious insurance claims. This up-to-date text covers insurance law from the business end – the business of claims. Practical, New Zealand-focused texts will always have an important place on a lawyer’s bookshelf. Insurance Claims in New Zealand is an excellent starting point for aspiring insurance lawyers seeking an accessible introduction to the area. Its target audience, which includes loss adjusters and claims handlers, will find it useful. The Canterbury earthquakes have changed the insurance law landscape in New Zealand to some extent, perhaps bringing more practitioners into contact with insurance issues than ever before. Some previously untested wordings have been worked through, and the mechanics of how policies respond to multiple events have been refined. The book incorporates the legal developments in New Zealand since the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury events, but the scope is much wider than earthquake claims. Very much tailored to the New Zealand market, the emphasis is on New Zealand cases. The authors’ intention was to create something of a handbook. They have included a chapter on assessment of claims, with practical tips. They draw attention to important fundamentals: “It must never be assumed that an insured loss can be quantified without reading and considering the insurance policy.” The authors offer their preferred interpretation where there may be conflicting viewpoints, or where cases have, in their view, been wrongly decided. There is some interesting critique of decisions, for example AMP General Insurance (NZ) Ltd v Hugo (2003) 12 ANZ Insurance Cases 76,618 which they say misses the point of s 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977. One theme that the authors return to often is the indemnity principle, which they doubt is an overarching rule of insurance law. Their thesis is that the words of the policy have primacy, even if this results in a profit to the insured. They question the Supreme Court’s acceptance in Ridgecrest NZ Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2015] 1 NZLR 40 that the indemnity principle prevents the insured recovering more than the replacement value of the building. There is some interesting debate to be had here. From an insurer’s perspective, there is no logic in paying for damage that will never be separately repaired because it is overtaken by later full destruction. There cannot be double counting of unrepaired damage. Delay in settling claims, and possible remedies if Continued on next page...

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Legal information

McMorland on Easements, Covenants and Licences BY DON MCMORLAND Reviewed by Jacintha Atkinson this results from bad faith or intransigence by insurers, is discussed. The authors point to the High Court’s decision in Domenico Trustee Ltd v Tower Insurance Ltd [2015] NZHC 981 as an example of Courts finding against insurers where there have been delays. The Court of Appeal has since expressed reservations about whether Courts can make an election for a delaying insurer (Tower Insurance Ltd v Domenico Trustee Ltd [2015] NZCA 372). Users must take care to check for developments since publication in June 2015, as the law is moving quickly in this area. Who can enforce policy obligations, and whether breach by one insured affects cover, can be important questions. There is a whole chapter on joint and composite insurance. This area saw developments in the 1980s and 1990s, but recent cases such as Crystal Imports [2015] NZCA 283 and New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Inc [2015] 18 ANZ Insurance Cases 62-066 show that issues around insuring multiple interests remain relevant. The book is clearly and logically organised. The text is readable, the style modern. Insurance Claims in New Zealand is a relatively slim volume. It does not address every potential claim complexity, but provides guidance on common issues and highlights key authorities. Specialists seeking detailed academic analysis should look elsewhere. For the bread and butter work of insurance claims, this is a helpful edition. Insurance Claims in New Zealand, LexisNexis NZ Ltd, June 2015, 978-1-927248-26-3, 313 pages, paperback and e-book, $150 (GST included, p&h excluded). ▪ Rebeccca Scott is an experienced litigator at boutique insurance litigation practice McElroys, specialising in insurance and professional liability claims.

The purpose of this book is to keep all property lawyers up to date with the latest case law in this area and on specific topics which will refine and advance your understanding on this particular topic. The book is based around Chapters 16, 17 and 18 of the looseleaf Hinde McMorland and Sim Land Law in NZ. This book would make a useful resource for any lawyer who practises and advises clients in regards to property/land law in New Zealand. It has footnotes along the way with helpful references to case law and relevant sections of the legislation. The format of the book is very much like other looseleaf publications, with a detailed index in the front, followed by a table of cases and a table of statutes. It brings the text in the area up to date to 27 March 2015 and provides current case law on the subject matter. The index is easy to follow, with the book covering firstly Easements, then Covenants and lastly Licences. Within each chapter there is in-depth information on what each of these terms means, how they can arise, and any peculiarities you may come across in practice. The chapter on easements covers the nature of easements, characteristics, classification, how they are created, types, rights and powers attached, how to vary and how to extinguish them. The chapter on covenants discusses them in the context of common law, equity, and statute, the differences between positive covenants and covenants in gross, general principles associated with covenants and remedies available if breached. The chapter on licences covers the nature and type of licences that can be granted, the principal of equitable estoppel, enforceability by third parties and determining licences. The book provides a very broad coverage of these areas, but is not too overwhelming as they are broken down into smaller sub-chapters. If you are used to referring to chapters and sub-chapters in looseleaf texts, you will have no problem following the index of this book, and it appears to follow a logical order. For me, this was not a book I found easy to sit and read from start to end, but I feel it would be very helpful to have in your office to refer to if you have a specific query or a particular scenario come up in your dayto-day practice which you would like to read some current commentary on and find references to applicable case law. This book would also be helpful for practitioners who have a basic knowledge on this topic but want to broaden that knowledge. This is not an area which changes quickly, and a lot of what is covered isn’t new and has been discussed before, but it’s the perfect resource for you to ensure that you are up-to-date with any changes in the area of property/land law in New Zealand. ▪ McMorland on Easements, Covenants and Licences, LexisNexis NZ Ltd, July 2015, 978-1-927313-45-9, 245 pages, paperback, $190 (GST included, p&h excluded).

worklicence.nz/templates-for-lawyers

Jacintha Atkinson is an associate solicitor at Richmond Law. She is experienced in advising on property and commercial law matters and wills, trusts and powers of attorney.

Law reform

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Law Society identifies problems with ‘bright-line test’ The New Zealand Law Society is concerned that the proposed two-year “bright-line test” for sales of residential property will unfairly catch ordinary taxpayers who need to sell property within two years of purchase because of changes in their personal circumstances. While the proposed Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill is intended to target speculators who are not meeting their income tax obligations, ordinary taxpayers are more likely to be impacted, provided they don’t fall within an exception, New Zealand Law Society spokesperson Stephen Tomlinson told the select committee hearing on the bill. The exceptions include the sale of an owner’s main home, inherited property and the transfer of property under a relationship property agreement. “It is likely that the proposed bright-line test will subject the sale of land to tax where the taxpayer genuinely did not have a purpose or intention of disposal at the time of acquisition. However it will not catch speculators who are currently not meeting their income tax obligations, as they will simply change their behaviour so that land will not be disposed of within the two-year period.”

Comprehensive review Officials have justified the introduction of the bright-line test, saying the disposal test in section CB 6(1) of the Income Tax Act 2007 can be difficult to enforce due to its subjectivity. However, the burden of proof in such matters falls on the relevant taxpayer and not the Commissioner, the Law Society says. “The proposed test should not be enacted as it is likely to be ineffective in achieving its stated objective. If officials are concerned about difficulties in enforcing the existing land gain taxation provisions, then there should be a comprehensive review of those provisions, rather than reform being made on a piece-meal basis.” The bright-line test is also unnecessary because the new property disclosure rules introduced by the Land Transfer Amendment Act 2015 and the Tax Administration Amendment Act 2015 (formerly the Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill) will make enforcement of the existing land sale rules much easier than at present. Given the potential effects of the proposed legislation, Stephen Tomlinson has also taken issue with the limited time frame and lack of consultation. He says a call for submissions was made on 9 September, yet submissions were due on 17 September, with a proposed enactment date of 1 October 2015. “We strongly recommend that the period for making submissions is extended so that proper consideration can be given to reforms that could inadvertently affect so many.” The select committee is due to report back to the House on 22 October. The Law Society submission is available on the NZLS website www. lawsociety.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/95144/Taxation-Bright-line-Testfor-Residential-Land-Bill-17-9-15.pdf. Spokesperson Stephen Tomlinson explains the Law Society’s position in a video which is also available on the website www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-and-communications/latest-news/ news/video-taxation-bill2. ▪

Recent submissions The Law Society recently filed submissions on: ▪▪ EQC Review: proposed changes to the Earthquake Commission Act 1993; ▪▪ Tax: PUB00220: Income Tax – Date of acquisition of land; ▪▪ Tax: PUB00215-3 and PUB00215-4: Income Tax – Insurance – Personal sickness and accident insurance; ▪▪ Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill; ▪▪ Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill, Member’s Bill; and ▪▪ Tax: Residential Land Withholding Tax: Officials’ Issues Paper. The submissions are available at www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-andcommunications/law-reform-submissions.

Coming up The Law Society is currently preparing submissions on numerous bills and government discussion documents. Members are welcome to contribute comments to the Law Reform Committee, specialist committees and sections preparing the submissions. There is information in the weekly LawPoints e-bulletin on upcoming NZLS law reform activities; and the Law Society’s Law Reform Manager can be contacted at vicky. stanbridge@lawsociety.org.nz.

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

How do I become (or employ) a barrister? In days gone by a newly admitted lawyer could commence practice on own account as a barrister sole immediately. This was despite having no legal experience and no supervision. Reliance was placed on instructing solicitors to brief competent barristers as a safeguard to the public and to uphold the reputation of the profession. From 2009 the requirements have been gradually increased to improve overall competency and in anticipation of a proposed relaxation of the intervention rule which took effect from 1 July 2015. The gap has now closed so that lawyers who practise on own account as a barrister sole must undergo the same basic training and approval process as a barrister and solicitor on own account.

Requirement The requirement for barristers and solicitors on own account and those intending to be barristers sole is to: ▪▪ complete the NZLS CLE Limited course Stepping Up – a foundation for practising on own account; ▪▪ apply to the Law Society and pay the application fee; ▪▪ prepare a business plan; ▪▪ attend an interview (when required); ▪▪ be suitable to practise on own account; ▪▪ have demonstrable competence through references relating to the areas of law in which you intend to practise; and ▪▪ have three from the last five years legal experience. That term is defined in the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Lawyers Practice Rules) Regulations 2008. (There is an option to apply under special circumstances if you do not meet the legal experience criteria). Any non-straightforward applications are referred to a specialist Practice Approval Committee. If your heart is set on being a barrister the required three years’ legal experience does not need to be gained while working as a barrister. You can practise as an employed barrister and solicitor in the meantime and then apply to become a barrister sole when you meet the requisite criteria. The experience and skills obtained are similar and positions may be easier to find. For those law graduates who wish to gain the three years’ experience practising as a barrister the opportunities are not always readily available.

Photo by John Perivolaris CC-By-NC-ND

Employment Many barristers work from established chambers and have chosen that mode of practice to avoid the stresses of being an employer and/or the pressures associated with being a partner in a large firm. While some senior barristers appreciate and benefit from having junior barristers available to assist, they may not be as willing to enter into an employment arrangement with all the added layers of supervision, PAYE, KiwiSaver, holidays, health and safety requirements etc. Being involved in a long hearing and having to be responsible for staff is not ideal. There seems to be some historical confusion about whether barristers are able to employ barristers. The rule is clear. Rule 14.3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 states that: A barrister sole may practise from a set of rooms or chambers and join with other barristers sole in sharing secretarial and support services for their practices,

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

including the employment of another lawyer who holds a practising certificate as a barrister sole.

Supervision A barrister employing a barrister will need to provide adequate supervision. Supervision of a barrister is as important as supervision of an employee in a law firm but is not always as conducive in the chambers environment. Supervision is a two-way street. While the employer barrister has prime responsibility the employee barrister should be proactive in ensuring they receive adequate supervision and raise the matter with their employer if it is not happening on a regular basis. For the perils of inadequate supervision of a junior barrister see LCRO decision 87/2014 available on the LCRO website.

Taking advantage Anecdotally, there is talk of barristers taking advantage of the position and employing barristers for little or no pay expecting them to work long hours with very little if any supervision in order to gain the necessary experience required to apply to practise on own account. Other anecdotes refer to junior barristers not being employees in the true sense of the word and instead entering into contracts for services on an “eat what you kill” basis. Only a lawyer who has been approved to practise on own account is permitted to enter into a contract for service. All barristers who are employed must be an employee under an Employment Agreement. In Australia there are reported large pools of law graduates having little prospect of finding employment as a lawyer. One advertisement appearing on SEEK offered law graduates the chance to gain qualification experience for a

❝ Supervision of a barrister is as important as supervision of an employee in a law firm

payment of $22,000. This was removed after one day and is on hold pending a review by the South Australia Law Society as to whether what was offered would be consistent with an employment relationship. South Australian law graduates are required to undertake two years of supervised employment before being allowed to practise independently. It has also been reported that the Australian Law Students Association asked its Productivity Commission to address “predatory or exploitative” business practices targeting “desperate” law students. The association said it was concerned about unpaid opportunities actually ending up being quite exploitative or just a substitute for free labour. For more information about becoming a barrister sole, being employed by a barrister, or employing a barrister, contact NZLS Registry on 0800 223 030. Some branches of the New Zealand Law Society maintain a CV scheme for new graduates and it may be worthwhile lodging your CV in case any barristerial opportunities arise. ▪

Whale Watch amends figure An article entitled “Is trading by charities charitable?” by Dr Michael Gousmett appeared in LawTalk 874 (25 September 2015). This article quoted various figures as reported in the Charities Services annual returns for a number of entities, including Whale Watch Kaikoura Limited. Following the appearance of that article on 25 September, on 29 September Whale Watch sent the following message to Charities Services regarding the $28 million unexplained increment in equity that Dr Gousmett had identified in the LawTalk article: “To whom this may concern “We wish to report that there is an error in the 2014 Annual Accounts summary and request that the summary be corrected. The Statement of Financial Performance shows: “Cost of Trading Operations $ 31,787,000. The correct figure is $3,787,000. “Thank you for attending to this matter.”

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Criminal offending and deportation liability By Stewart Dalley and Maya Bozovik The risk of a visa holder being subject to deportation has been a feature of immigration law for a number of years. Traditionally, however, for reasons unknown, Immigration New Zealand have been slow to issue deportation liability notices (DLN) on visa holders who were convicted of a crime, despite the legislative ability. In our practice, clients with criminal offending have up until now generally fallen into two camps – those clients whose visa was due to expire and were aware that a criminal conviction meant they required our assistance to make submissions to Immigration New Zealand for a character waiver to be granted in order for them to be eligible for new visa, and those clients who only became aware of the need for a character waiver once they had filed a new visa application, and thereafter sought our firm’s assistance. We are now witnessing a change of direction in terms of immigration compliance procedures. Immigration New Zealand is now actively issuing deportation liability notices on visa holders soon after a qualifying criminal conviction has been entered. This includes cases where there is a pending temporary visa application. It is our view that this shift in compliance practice by Immigration New Zealand necessitates immigration advice being sought before any conviction or plea being entered for a client. The advice may, however, differ depending on the visa the client currently holds. Temporary visas include, but are not limited to, work, student and visitor visas. Section 157(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 2009 provides that a temporary visa holder is liable for deportation if they are convicted of any crime. As mentioned above, Immigration New Zealand is now

Stewart Dalley

Maya Bozovik

High threshold

conveyit. maestro cloud based conveyancing

It’s the cloud based conveyancing software that’s got everyone talking conveyit Maestro is an automated cloud based conveyancing system designed by New Zealand Lawyers for New Zealand Lawyers Professionals and Conveyancers

www.conveyit.co.nz

actively pursuing s 157(5)(b) and issuing deportation liability notices not long after a conviction is entered. Section 207 of the Immigration Act 2009 provides that a temporary visa holder can appeal against deportation liability on humanitarian grounds (within 28 days of the DLN being served). Section 207(1) requires the appellant to satisfy the Immigration and Protection Tribunal that there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand; and it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the public interest to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand.

0508 33 22 88

This is a high threshold test that will not be easily met. The Immigration and Protection Tribunal’s Annual Report for 2014/2015 highlights that 69% of appeals against deportation by non-residents were declined, while 56% of appeals against deportation by residents resulted in a decline. Accordingly, for many temporary visa holders the serving of a DLN will result in them being deported from New Zealand because they will be unable to satisfy s 207(1) of the Immigration Act. The serving of a DLN also prevents temporary visa holders from applying for any other type of visa. Therefore, they are unable in most cases to apply for a new visa, and with it seek a character waiver from Immigration New Zealand. When that happens, the client becomes unlawfully in the country and unable to work or study.

Residence visa holders While temporary visa holders can be subject to deportation as a result of being convicted of any crime, s 161(1) of the Immigration Act provides that a residence visa

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

holder becomes liable for deportation if convicted of a crime where the court has the power to impose a term of imprisonment of: (a) 3 months or more within 2 years of obtaining residence, or (b) 2 years or more within 5 years of obtaining residence, or (c) 5 years or more within 10 years of obtaining residence. Section 161(d) was recently added so that residence visa holders who are employers can also be subject to deportation if they are convicted of exploiting workers or employing staff who are not legally able to work. There has been an increase in Immigration New Zealand’s tendency to instigate deportation liability procedures where a resident has applied for a permanent resident visa and their circumstances fall under s 161(1)(a). It is also noted that Immigration New Zealand’s actions in this context now includes low-level offending and first time offenders which would have generally not been acted upon in the past. As per s 169(1)(b), this in turn prevents the applicant from being able to obtain a permanent resident visa. While they may be granted travel conditions, they remain in limbo, awaiting Immigration New Zealand’s decision as to whether any deportation action will be taken at all.

threshold humanitarian appeal test. While in many cases it may appear proportionate to convict someone and sentence them to, for instance, 100 hours community service (and this may appear to be a prima facie “good deal”), when the accused is a temporary visa holder (or resident visa holder if it is a qualifying conviction), the entering of that conviction will in the majority of cases result in deportation. It will be a question of fact in each case as to whether it is proportionate in the circumstances to convict, in the knowledge that the conviction will invariably result in deportation. In this respect, we need to ask whether the punishment truly fits the crime.

Conclusion

Proportionality of outcome

Given the increased instances of Immigration New Zealand issuing DLNs soon after a qualifying conviction is entered, it is our view that the immigration impacts of a conviction must factor during criminal proceedings affecting visa holders. Otherwise we risk having truly disproportionate outcomes. It is further evident that non-citizens, including resident visa holders, must obtain advice of the immigration consequences of their criminal offending before entering a plea. ▪

The proportionality of convicting a visa holder of a crime needs to be factored into criminal defence submissions. It needs to be borne in mind that the entering of a criminal conviction will likely (69% for non-residents, 56% for residents) result in the accused being deported from New Zealand because they will not be able to meet the high

Maya Bozovik is a senior solicitor with Ryken and Associates who specialises in all areas of immigration and refugee matters. Stewart Dalley is also a solicitor with Ryken and Associates working in this field of law, and is currently a member of the ADLS Inc Immigration and Refugee Law Committee.

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Legal Aid — Good Practice Themes Legal Aid Services published High Quality Legal Aid Services – Good Practice Themes from Audits on 31 August. This report presents overall results from audits of legal aid lawyers undertaken between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2015. The full report and a summary are available on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.govt.nz/services/service-providers/ information-for-legal-professionals/information-for-legal-aid-providers/whats-new-for-legalaid-providers. LawTalk interviewed Michele McCreadie, General Manager, Legal Aid Services, about the report.

What is your view of the quality of legal aid services? The majority of legal aid lawyers are delivering high standards of service and ensuring New Zealanders have access to justice, which is the overall purpose of legal aid. Their clients are well represented and are receiving good quality legal aid advice, from both legal aid lawyers working at the private bar and salaried lawyers employed by the Public Defence Service.

Michele McCreadie

What evidence do you have? Our annual programme of quality and value audits provides solid evidence for assessing the quality of legal aid services. Last year we conducted 67 audits of legal aid lawyers which found 85% were delivering services to an “acceptable” level or above. Our auditors are experienced legal aid lawyers, who have considerable practical knowledge and experience. Why is the report called Good Practice Themes? The report focuses on the 31 audits with “excellent” and “very good” results. We chose to focus on those because we wanted to provide positive feedback to the legal profession to acknowledge and reinforce evidence-based good practice. Our Provider Services team undertook a qualitative analysis of those audit reports and found recurrent good practice themes. What prompted this report? We made a commitment to publish the overall audit results in our recent consultation, which was part of the May 2015 review of the provider audit and monitoring policy. What are the good practice key themes? There are six good practice themes – two relating to outcomes for legal aid clients and the others about high quality processes. We called the first theme best possible outcomes for clients. For example, one report noted a case where the client benefitted significantly from a change of plea, with a reduced charge. It was a situation where the lawyer had difficulty getting witness briefs, but their perseverance paid off and a not guilty verdict was achieved. In criminal

❝ The majority of legal aid lawyers are delivering high standards of service and ensuring New Zealanders have access to justice, which is the overall purpose of legal aid

legal aid, auditors noted good use of the sentence indication process as a means to help resolve charges and achieve good sentencing outcomes. In family legal aid there was good use of alternative dispute resolution processes to achieve outcomes or agreements for clients, often without recourse to the courts. The second theme is about meeting the needs of clients and other people using the justice system. Clients were handled appropriately according to their individual needs and characteristics. By skilfully representing vulnerable people and working well with others such as the courts and the Police, legal aid lawyers are helping the justice system to operate smoothly, fairly and efficiently. The third theme was quality legal advice and representation that accurately identifies the legal issues. Auditors commented that the lawyers had carefully identified and analysed the legal issues and exercised good judgement. They interpreted cases in a holistic way, managed their clients effectively, were well-prepared and professional. The next good practice theme was clear and appropriate communication tailored to the client. Lawyers kept their clients advised of progress “every step of the way” and provided easily understood written communications. Where appropriate, there were regular discussions with clients, for example in relation to ongoing negotiations and obtaining instructions and clear records were kept. Another important theme was that value for money was demonstrated and proportionate. There was a link connecting the fees charged, the invoices and time records submitted to Legal Aid and the work undertaken and finally the use of systems to send accounts to us in a regular and timely fashion. The final recurrent theme was sound office systems and record keeping to support the lawyer’s business. Efficient office management systems, including time recording and case checklists, help to drive a legal aid case towards completion. The auditors were pleased to see many examples of clear, comprehensive

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

case records including good file notes. Any lawyer uplifting a file would have no difficulty in assessing the state of proceedings. How do audits of legal aid providers work? Our auditing is based on reviewing selected case files and records which are handled on a strictly confidential basis. For each lawyer, we select seven completed legal aid cases that cost at least $1,000, for a variety of case types. The process is an overall judgement of the quality and value of the legal aid services provided by the lawyer. Audit results range from excellent to very poor. They are reviewed by our Provider Services team who recommend any follow-up actions under delegation from the Secretary for Justice. Quality assurance of legal aid lawyers is kept separate from granting legal aid and assigning cases to legal aid lawyers, which are decisions made by the Legal Services

❝ Much of a lawyer’s work today depends on high quality written submissions and this was evident in the case files

Commissioner. This distinction adds rigour to our process. To what extent to do audits of records and files actually indicate quality of services delivered? While some auditors commented that it can be difficult to assess actual courtroom performance from case files, they were able to identify good quality legal research that was reflected in appropriate advice to clients. Much of a lawyer’s work today depends on high quality written submissions and this was evident in the case files. How are providers selected for audit? Lawyers with a high legal aid caseload in comparison to others are selected for audit using a statistical tool based on a combination of factors, including high legal aid earnings. We look at the records of substantiated complaints and previous unfavourable audit results and this has an influence on who is selected. Lawyers who attain good audit results are generally removed from the pool. We acknowledge that auditing 4.5% of the 1,665 lead providers each year is a relatively low proportion but we counteract this by taking a targeted approach. ▪

NZI Liability:

smarter, bolder solutions. NZI and Lumley have come together to create a new force in liability underwriting. Leveraging the best of both businesses, NZI Liability’s industry-leading underwriting team delivers smarter, bolder insurance solutions to a wide range of New Zealand businesses – from private start-ups to listed entities, across a variety of industries and professions, including legal. Our liability insurance solutions are backed by our proactive claims team, enabling our customers to trade with confidence. To request a liability insurance quote from NZI Liability, please talk to your insurance broker. To find out more, check out our suite of products at nzi.co.nz

NZ6250 NZI Liability launch_Law Talk_HPH ad.indd 1

14/10/15 1:45 pm

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Corrections funded alcohol interlock licence pilot From 30 September 2015 the Department of Corrections has begun to fund at least 100 alcohol interlock devices for eligible offenders on community sentences in a limited 12-month pilot. International evidence shows the use of alcohol interlocks results in large reductions of between 64-70% in recidivism of alcohol-impaired driving. The Corrections pilot aims to achieve a reduction in repeat drink driving in New Zealand. There is no change to the current alcohol interlock licence system other than that Corrections will fund the device for offenders on a community sentence during the pilot. Corrections wants lawyers to inform their clients of this funded pilot and to recommend an alcohol interlock licence to judges at sentencing. The pilot began on 30 September 2015 and will be available to offenders who are: ▪▪ currently eligible for an alcohol interlock licence, that is are convicted of an alcohol driving offence and have previously been convicted of such an offence within 5 years, or have more than 800mg (breath)

or 160mg (blood alcohol); and ▪▪ sentenced to a community sentence (Supervision, Intensive Supervision, Community Detention, Community Work or Home Detention). The final referral will be accepted on the pilot by 30 June 2016 with the pilot concluding in September 2017.

National pilot and funding An alcohol interlock device is connected to the start-up mechanism of a car and acts as a vehicle immobiliser. It is not possible to start the car until the driver has successfully passed a breath alcohol test. Funding has been secured from the Justice Sector Fund for the Work & Living Skills: Road Safety Package. This is a national pilot so this sentencing option will be available to judges throughout the country. For the pilot to be statistically useful, Corrections needs 100 offenders on the pilot programme by June 2016. However, as the funding is limited Corrections will let lawyers know how the pilot is tracking in terms of numbers of offenders and

available funding. Corrections will be working with the alcohol interlock provider and licensing agents NZTA, AA, VINZ and VTNZ. Corrections will fund: ▪▪ the cost of the alcohol interlock licence ($200); ▪▪ the lease of the device and its installation; ▪▪ monthly downloading of data; ▪▪ removal of the device at the end of the pilot or if the offender chooses to opt out; and ▪▪ the fee for a zero alcohol drivers’ licence ($66.40). The offender is responsible for the following costs: ▪▪ extra service fees resulting from violations ($45 per service); and ▪▪ transferring the interlock to another vehicle if required ($175 per transfer). For more information contact Tangihaere Walker, email: tangihaere.walker@ corrections.govt.nz. ▪ This article was written by the communications team at the Department of Corrections.

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

A last hurrah for locus standi in patent oppositions? By Virginia Nichols After an application for a patent has been accepted by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ), there is a threemonth period in which a third party can oppose grant of a patent. The rules as to who is entitled to oppose are changing because of the new Patents Act 2013. Complete patent applications with an effective filing date before 13 September 2014 remain subject to the Patents Act 1953 until grant. This means the old rules continue to apply to third party oppositions to the grant of letters patent for such applications.

Emeny v Quinspread Technologies Ltd [2015] NZIPOPAT 19 One such case was that of Mr Emeny, whose patent application (filed on 27 March 2007) was opposed by Quinspread Technologies Ltd in early 2009. The opposition progressed, but on 27 June 2013, the opponent was placed into liquidation. Most of the company assets were sold off by January 2014, but the liquidator confirmed the opposition should continue. However, when the matter proceeded to a substantive hearing in May 2015, counsel for Mr Emeny argued that Quinspread had lost the locus standi it had when the opposition was started back in 2009, and was no longer allowed to be involved. It was common ground that the relevant s 21(1) of the Patents Act 1953, which allowed opposition only by “any person interested”, required the opponent to satisfy the Court or Commissioner that an opponent has a genuine commercial interest and that there is likelihood that the opponent will suffer real prejudice by the existence of the opposed application.1

Timing is everything What was not clear was when this requirement for locus standi had to be met.

Virginia Nichols

Although it was agreed that Quinspread had locus standi when the opposition was lodged in 2009, did it still have to be able to establish locus standi at the date of the hearing? With no case law directly on point, Assistant Commissioner Poppelwell reviewed the submissions of the parties, and their supporting authorities. He found2 that that the opponent’s requirement for locus standi is ongoing and must exist at both: 1 the date the notice of opposition is filed; and 2 the time of the hearing. It was clear from existing authorities that the onus of establishing locus standi lies on the opponent.3 Quinspread had failed to provide evidence of its ongoing locus standi. It was therefore not entitled to be heard at the substantive hearing into the merits of the opposition. The Assistant Commissioner also refused to admit the amended pleadings filed by Quinstead well into its liquidation, by which stage it probably no longer had a genuine commercial interest that could be prejudiced by the grant of a patent. It is an interesting feature of patent oppositions that once an opposition has been lodged, even if the opponent subsequently drops out of the proceedings, the Commissioner is obliged to consider the pleaded grounds in the public interest. The merits of the opposition to Mr Emeny’s patent application will therefore still be considered in the public interest, with only the applicant, Mr Emeny, allowed to make submissions.

patent or a pending application. This is an ex partes procedure in which the third party has no ongoing involvement, and there is no requirement for locus standi. Following submissions at the Select Committee stage, third party oppositions (originally intended to be abolished) were also retained under the new regime. However, an opposition can now be instigated by “any person”.4 The removal of the word “interested” means a potential opponent no longer has to establish they have locus standi at any time during proceedings, to have the right to oppose a patent.

Effect of Patents Act 2013

1 Wade’s Application (Commissioner’s Decision No P01/1981, 9/1/81), cited with approval at paragraphs 19-20, Emeny v Quinspread Technologies Ltd [2015] NZIPOPAT 19 2 Paragraph 32, Emeny v Quinspread Technologies Ltd [2015] NZIPOPAT 19 3 IPONZ P19/2001, BHP (JLA) Pty Limited v Perstorp AB 4 Section 92, Patents Act 2013

Complete patent applications with a deemed filing date after 13 September 2014 are governed by the new Patents Act 2013. The new Act introduces re-examination as an additional new mechanism by which a third party can challenge either a granted

Future oppositions There will remain a trickle of cases to be decided under the provisions of the Patents Act 1953, for which the additional clarity regarding the timing of when locus standi has to be established will be relevant. However, for most future patent oppositions, locus standi is no longer required. Emeny v Quinspread Technologies Ltd may therefore be the swan song of patent opposition decisions in which locus standi is an issue. ▪ Virginia Nichols is a senior associate at Saunders & Co, specialising in Intellectual Property law. She has a particular interest in dispute resolution, including oppositions and infringement actions relating to patents and other IP rights.

CPD Calendar PROGRAMME

PRESENTERS

CONTENT

WHERE

WHEN

For those with recent approved prior mediation training, including our Part A course. This programme will be an opportunity to practise mediation skills in the civil/ commercial arena and then to be assessed on them. Strictly limited numbers with pre-course work required.

Auckland

4-6 Dec

Contract law is at the heart of all commercial law and practice and a sound, up-to-date knowledge of the area is essential for all lawyers. In this practical seminar you will be updated on the latest developments in contract law and gain understanding of the practical consequences of those developments.

Dunedin

17 Nov

Christchurch

18 Nov

CIVIL LITIGATION AND EMPLOYMENT MEDIATION FOR LAWYERS PART B – CIVIL/COMMERCIAL

Virginia Goldblatt Geoff Sharp

15 CPD hours

COMPANY, COMMERCIAL AND TAX UPDATE ON CONTRACT

Paul David QC

2.5 CPD hours 2 CPD hours

Hamilton

23 Nov

Wellington

24 Nov

Auckland

25 Nov

Webinar

24 Nov

CRIMINAL VULNERABLE WITNESSES – CHILDREN

Dr Kristen Hanna Dr Emily Henderson

Experience and research has shown that the courts have a serious problem with both the way practitioners take evidence from vulnerable people and also how they communicate with vulnerable defendants. This webinar will consider the practical measures that counsel can take now using pre-existing mechanisms to help ensure a better quality of evidence from witnesses and an enhanced level of participation from the defendant.

Webinar

10 Nov

Nic Scampion Gillian Service

This webinar will consider what constitutes unlawful discrimination, how to prove it/defend it, the remedies that are available, and some procedural issues to navigate along the way. It will also look at recent case law from New Zealand and abroad, and consider the lessons to learn.

Webinar

23 Nov

Liza Fry-Irvine Tim Jones

Since the Unit Titles Act 2010 replaced the previous Act in June 2011, bodies corporate have needed to manage the transition to the new regime. The presenters will share their experience in advising these entities on repairs, maintenance and good governance. This will help your clients to ensure that decisions to manage repairs and maintenance are made appropriately and in a timely manner.

Webinar

28 Oct

Jenny Baldwin Theresa Donnelly

This webinar, stemming from the successful In Short, will consider some of the key issues your clients can expect to be confronted with, including the interface between moving into a retirement village, the Residential Care Subsidy and the Residential Care Loan scheme.

Webinar

19 Nov

Chair: Thomas Gibbons

The Unit Titles Intensive has expert speakers sharing their extensive practical knowledge and experience, with in-depth coverage of key topics affecting those working in the field, whether in conveyancing, subdivisions, advising owners and managers, or resolving disputes – and whether you are a lawyer, manager, surveyor, or other property professional.

Auckland

3 Nov

Wellington

4 Nov

Live Web Stream

4 Nov

1.5 CPD hours

EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION

1.5 CPD hours

PROPERTY AND TRUSTS CHALLENGES FOR BODIES CORPORATE

1.5 CPD hours

RETIREMENT – VILLAGES, SUBSIDIES, LOANS

1.5 CPD hours

UNIT TITLES INTENSIVE

6.5 CPD hours

For our FULL CPD calendar with programme details see www.lawyerseducation.co.nz

Online registration and payment can be made at: www.lawyerseducation.co.nz

PROGRAMME

PRESENTERS

CONTENT

WHERE

WHEN

Attend this workshop to learn a practical framework and gain specific analytical tools for working with legal arguments.

Wellington

28 Oct

Auckland

29 Oct

David Littlefair Niamh McMahon David Murphy Simon Price

To qualify as a trust account supervisor, you must complete 40-55 hours’ preparation, attend the assessment day and pass all assessments.

Auckland

18 Nov

Christchurch

25 Nov

Jane Chart

Including hands on practice and feedback, this workshop examines different strategies and tactics, and offers tools for dealing with difficult negotiators, breaking impasses, and for addressing specific issues which you might wish to raise.

Auckland

17-18 Nov

Wellington

24-25 Nov

Virginia Goldblatt David Patten

Mediation knowledge and skills are an increasingly important adjunct to legal practice. Many more clients are taking disputes to mediation (because it works) and the more that their legal advisers know about how it works the better. In addition, practice as a mediator extends the service that lawyers can offer the public.

Wellington

30 Oct1 Nov

Mark von Dadelszen

Meetings that are called, run and minuted as required by law are fundamental in business, government, and the community but their legal requirements are often ignored. This webinar will assist practitioners advising companies, societies, trusts, charities and government agencies, as well as those serving on the committees or boards of community organisations.

Webinar

12 Nov

Section 21 agreements are common place and often require a large degree of input, knowledge and “crystal ball gazing” on the part of practitioners who want to ensure that the agreements withstand the test of time. This presentation is intended not only to update practitioners on recent case law but to consider and address the “grey areas” we all encounter when drafting living agreements (s 21) and settlement agreements (s21A).

Auckland

25 Nov

PRACTICE & PROFESSIONAL SKILLS LOGIC FOR LAWYERS

Professor Douglas Lind

5 CPD hours

TRUST ACCOUNT SUPERVISORS

7.5 CPD hours LAWYER AS NEGOTIATOR

11.5 CPD hours

UNDERSTANDING MEDIATION – MEDIATION FOR LAWYERS PART A

14.5 CPD hours

MEETINGS – LEGAL ESSENTIALS

1.5 CPD hours

IN SHORT - AUCKLAND SECTION 21 AGREEMENTS – SHADES OF GREY?

2 CPD hours

Amanda Donovan Jennie Hawker

To contact us | Visit: www.lawyerseducation.co.nz Email: cle@lawyerseducation.co.nz | Phone: CLE information on 0800 333 111.

Law Foundation

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

Disappearing Pacific states — preparing for the deluge By Lynda Hagen Will small, low-lying Pacific island states retain any international legal personality after most of their people are displaced from their homelands by climate change-driven seawater inundation? And what obligations do countries like New Zealand have to help people made stateless by climate change? These questions are no longer simply theoretical – as Associate Professor Alberto Costi of Victoria University explains, it is only a matter of time before whole populations face evacuation from Pacific atoll nations. “Small atoll low-lying nations won’t disappear in one go, or even entirely – but we need to find a way of enabling these disappearing states to retain some legal personality in international law, so that they can still represent the interests of their citizens,” he says. “There is obviously some moral responsibility on the international community to address these issues. What is important is to see whether there could be an emerging duty of assistance by industrialised states.” Alberto is carrying out a Law Foundation-backed study into the legal status of disappearing states and the potential obligations for New Zealand and other neighbouring states towards climate change evacuees. These issues gained media prominence recently with the case of Kiribati citizen Ioane Teitiota, who was deported from New Zealand after unsuccessfully arguing a claim for refugee status on the basis of environmental threats in his home country. Alberto says that under current international law, Mr Teitiota’s claim was never going to fly: “No matter how you try to build an argument, the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention doesn’t recognise this as a ground,” he says. “The question is whether the existing convention should be amended, and that will be problematic. In the short term, what can work better are programmes that involve

Lynda Hagen

Providing Professional Indemnity and specialist insurance products to the Legal Profession Visit www.justitia.co.nz for further information and application forms Or Contact: Mr Ross Meijer, Aon New Zealand 04-819-4000 ross.meijer@aon.com

Pacific islands with governments like Australia and New Zealand.” International legal responses to climate change have mainly been about mitigating the impacts, for example with greenhouse gas emissions – but as Alberto says, these actions have been driven more by perceived moral obligations than legal duties. “I am looking at developments in international law that could put some legal obligations on states, in the absence of clear treaty-based obligations.” He acknowledges that officials tend to resist the idea of a legal duty, because states like to help at their own pace, without a sense of legal obligation. “The second component is looking at how we need to prepare as a country,” he says. “New Zealand has to be ready to face this influx of environmental migrants, and I do not believe that we are prepared. We have great interests in the countries of this region, and there are large island communities in New Zealand. We need to ensure there is an infrastructure in place so that the rights of these people, becoming a minority here, are preserved.” Awareness-raising is another important task, he says. “As a good international citizen, currently on the [United Nations] Security Council, New Zealand has a role in making sure that the rest of the international community is much more aware of the plight of the Pacific islands.” The wider world has limited knowledge of the imminent threat to this region, and the cost of adapting through measures like sea walls, which are expensive and offer only temporary protection. Alberto plans to produce research articles ahead of publishing a book around mid2018. For more information about this and other Law Foundation funded projects, visit our website at www.lawfoundation.org.nz ▪ Lynda Hagen is the Executive Director of the New Zealand Law Foundation.

Lawyers Complaints Service

Lawyers Complaints Service Censure for not obeying standards committee order Briton Trevor Salter, who continued conducting transactions using the trust account of another practice after a lawyers standards committee had ordered him to cease the practice, has been censured and fined $5,000 by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. In [2015] NZLCDT 28, Mr Salter admitted the charges that he faced. In March 2012, the standards committee found that Mr Salter had control over money but failed to pay it into a separate or general trust account of his firm. The committee ordered Mr Salter to rectify the error by ceasing to use the trust account of another practice. It also ordered him to take advice from a senior lawyer as to the management of his practice. In November 2013, the standards committee found Mr Salter was in breach of the March 2012 order. Mr Salter was again ordered to cease using the trust account of another practice for the purposes of transactional work. Between 9 March 2012 and 5 February 2014 Mr Salter used the trust account of another practice for more than 250 transactions. He also failed to take advice from a senior lawyer as to the management of his practice.

Not permitted Counsel for Mr Salter said that he now realised that conducting transactions through the trust account of another practice was not permitted for an incorporated law firm. Since February 2014, when he obtained his Trust Account Supervisor certificate, Mr Salter’s “house has been in order”. He has apologised to the Law Society and the Tribunal for the problems he has caused by

not having his Trust Account Supervisor certificate in place. Mr Salter also said that he had one telephone conversation with the senior lawyer he was told he must take advice from. However he did not then receive any written correspondence said to be sent to him from the senior practitioner. Mr Salter “now fully accepts that it was his obligation to follow up on the direction to accept the advice ordered”. Save for mitigating factors, the Tribunal said, “it was considered that the practitioner’s misconduct sits above the lower end of the scale of seriousness and would warrant a period of suspension. “The Tribunal has decided against that course after taking into account that [Mr Salter] has quite properly admitted the charges, has now made his practice compliant and has apologised to the [standards committee] and the Tribunal.” As well as the censure and fine, Mr Salter was ordered to pay the Law Society $9,853.81 standards committee costs and $3,259 Tribunal costs. ▪

Fee deduction was unsatisfactory conduct A lawyer, B, who deducted fees from funds properly due to an estate has been found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct. In [2015] NZLCDT 26, the lawyer faced three charges at a hearing of the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. A man died in March 2003. He was survived by his widow, two children of that marriage and by a number of children of former marriages. The man’s estate consisted of a modest home in his sole name. The man’s will left the widow as a life tenant of the home.

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

After her death the home was to be transferred to the two children of the marriage, contingent upon them attaining 24 years of age. The will provided for specific legacies to some of the deceased’s children and then directed that the residue be divided between the widow, her children and some of her stepchildren in unequal shares. Guardian Trust was appointed executor. It immediately became clear to Guardian Trust that administration of the estate would not be straightforward. There was little or no money to meet the executorship charges and ongoing management fees regarding the life tenancy. Guardian Trust initiated correspondence and discussion about renouncing its right to probate and administration of the will and eventually did so. The widow consulted B very soon after the death of her husband. She received advice about her life tenancy and about making a claim to the estate. B engaged in correspondence with Guardian Trust about possible options for administration of the estate if it renounced its executorship.

Term deposit The widow advised B that the deceased had at the time of his death a term deposit of $45,000 in his sole name. The first charge B faced related to the fact that he had failed to correct statements he had made to Guardian Trust relating to the low value of the estate once he became aware there was a bank account in the deceased’s name with substantial funds in it. B maintained that the information about the bank account was confidential and that professionally he was not bound to disclose it to anyone in accordance with a signed directive he had from his client. “The Tribunal accepts, as did [B], that a barrister and solicitor may not mislead a third party such as the Guardian Trust even if it is the client’s instruction to do so,” the Tribunal decision states. The Tribunal noted that the statements in B’s correspondence were correct at the time they were written and that “there was no evidence before us that Guardian Trust corresponded with or attempted to engage further with the practitioner before renouncing its executorship”.

Confidentiality The Tribunal said it accepted that B had a professional obligation to his client to

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

keep confidential the existence of the bank account when he was directed in writing by his client to do so. “Maintaining client confidentiality is a cornerstone of the profession. Having regards to the facts of this case, the Tribunal is not required to consider further the issue of when obligations of non disclosure may be overridden.” The Tribunal accordingly dismissed that charge. In the second charge, the lawyers standards committee alleged that B had misled the bank when requesting that the funds from the deceased’s term deposit be paid into his trust account. The standards committee argued that the documents B provided the bank misrepresented the reality that the widow was only one of the beneficiaries and that she had no formal role in administering the estate. B’s response was that there had been no misrepresentation on his part and his letters made it clear that: ▪▪ the widow was the beneficiary he represented; ▪▪ his client was only one of the estate’s beneficiaries; ▪▪ the widow was not the executor/administrator of the estate; and ▪▪ the widow was claiming only the legal and equitable ownership of the funds which form part of the estate. The Tribunal said it reached the conclusion that the documents were neither misleading nor deceptive and dismissed the second charge. The third charge related to B deducting fees owed to him by the widow from funds due to the estate before forwarding those funds to the nominated trust account of a new solicitor instructed by the widow.

Coming Up...

Wills

Ethel Benjamin Address

Allan, James Alexander Batty, Stanley Paul Ferguson, Beatrice Ann Fraser, Eileen Hough, Colin John Johnson, Colleen Joy Kelly, James Andrew Kirwin, Karen Ann Kumaranathan, Ponnambalam Lamm, Olive Mabel Saxon, Gregory Francis Kendall Smalley, Luka Wallace, Stephen John Zurcher-Krieger, Adelheid Marie

The 19th annual New Zealand Law Foundation Ethel Benjamin Commemorative Address will be held at 1pm on 6 November at the Dunedin Public Art Gallery. This year’s address will be delivered by Court of Appeal Judge Justice Christine French. See www.lawfoundation.org.nz/?p=5227&z=3&e=1.

Labour law The third biennial Labour Law Conference will be held at Victoria University on 27 November. Organised by the New Zealand Labour Law Society in conjunction with Victoria University’s Law School, the conference has the theme Challenges of Regulating Future Labour Markets. See www.victoria. ac.nz/law/about/events/faculty-and-schoolevents/third-biennial-labour-law-conferenceof-the-new-zealand-labour-law-society.

LAWASIA Conference The 28th LAWASIA Conference will be held in Sydney from 6 to 9 November. LAWASIA

is an international organisation of lawyers’ associations, individual lawyers, judges, legal academics, and others which focuses on the interests and concerns of the legal profession in the Asia Pacific region. See http://lawasia.asn.au/lawasia-conferences. htm, or email lawasia@lawasia.asn.au.

Law Society Registry Comments concerning the suitability of any of the below-named applicants for the certificate or approval being sought should be made in writing to me by 29 October 2015. Any submissions should be given on the understanding that they may be disclosed to the candidate. The Registry is now advertising names of candidates for certificates of character, practising certificates and approvals to practise on own account on the NZLS website at www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-lawyers/ law-society-registry/applications-for-approval.

Deducted costs

— Christine Schofield, Acting Registry Manager

B deducted his costs of $10,009.56 owed to him by the widow personally, together with a sum representing tax deducted from the interest earned on the funds held in the trust account before he transferred the remainder of the funds as directed. The Tribunal said it found that B’s conduct in respect of the third charge was unsatisfactory. B applied for non publication of his name and of any details that would lead to identification of the estate and his client, and the Tribunal made such an order. The Tribunal also ordered B to pay the Law Society $10,000 standards committee costs and $7,077 Tribunal costs. ▪

 christine.schofield@lawsociety.org.nz  04 463 2940  0800 22 30 30  04 463 2989

Admission

McBride Kimberley Amanda Under Part 3 of McKenzie the Lawyers and Kimberley Dawn Conveyancers Mogil Gabrielle Sophia Act 2006 Rigby Charlotte Doake Conrad James Georgia Scott Tui East Amelia Smyth Benjamin Francesca Edwards Imogen Faye William Fitzgerald Sarah Kate Steiner Tracey Jean (previously Edwards) Frendin Rose Stephens Jai Graham Margaret Stokes Skye Kimiora MacRae Rozalina Stoyanova (previously Strang Levy Dante Ang Alexandrova)

Approval to Practise on Own Account Under s 30 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 Atkinson Matthew David Bennett Fiona Kaye Burgess Guy Raymond Conway Matthew Grant

Devoy Marie Elizabeth Hunt Thomas Edward Johnston Shannon Matthews Andrew John Nanson Raudkivi David Jaan Simpson Natasha Smith Timothy Dunham Smyth Pearse Martin Soper Andrew John Walker Penelope Anne Wilson Christine Rosemary

23 October 2015 · LawTalk 876

Olive Mabel Lamm Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, late of 32B St Vincent Avenue, Remuera, Auckland, who died on 3 August 2015, please contact Tina Wilson, Wilson McKay Lawyers:

James Alexander Allan Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, who died on 23 September 2015 at Paekakariki, please contact Steven Lee, Barrister & Solicitor:  steven-lee@xtra.co.nz  04 298 9828  04 298 9818  PO Box 142, Paraparaumu 5032, DX RP60033

Stanley Paul Batty Would any lawyer, particularly in the Wellington area, holding a will for the above named, late of Paraparaumu, who died on 26 September 2015, please contact Fleur Hobson, Susie Mills Law Limited:  fleur@susiemills.com  04 293 3735  04 499 1133  PO Box 144, Waikanae 5250

Beatrice Ann Ferguson

 tinawilson@wilsonmckay.co.nz  09 523 0766  09 524 0397  PO Box 28347, Remuera, Auckland 1541, DX CP33019

Gregory Francis Kendall Saxon Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, late of Te Aroha, who died on 16 September 2015 aged 60 years, please contact Evelyn Ryan, Ryan Law:  evelyn.ryan@ryanlaw.co.nz  07 884 0002  07 884 0039  PO Box 77, Te Aroha 3342, DX GA24502

Luka Smalley Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, late of 12 Killington Crescent, Mangere, Auckland, born on 23 January 1959, who died at Auckland on 17 May 2015 aged 56 years, please contact Komene Jones, Komene Jones Solicitor:  komenlaw@xtra.co.nz  09 294 9331  09 294 9335  PO Box 272 1092, Papakura 2244

Would any lawyer particularly in the Auckland area, holding a will for the above named, aka Ann Beatrice Ferguson, formerly of 19 Lane Weymouth, but recently of Takanini Lodge, 9-11 Taka Street, Takanini, Auckland, please contact Bronwyn Le Vesconte, Public Trust:

Stephen John Wallace

 bronwyn.levesconte@publictrust.co.nz  09 985 6839  09 985 5570  PO Box 76275, Manukau City, Auckland 2241, DX EP75522

 Courtney.murray@mccawlewis.co.nz  07 958 7437  07 834 3062  PO Box 9348, Hamilton 3240, DX GP20020

Eileen Fraser Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, late of 33 Grey Street, Waitara, Taranaki, beneficiary, born on 13 October 1953, who died on 3 September 2015, please contact Elizabeth Robertson:  michaelliz@xtra.co.nz  09 577 3539  PO Box 82 Manor Park, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, late of 13a Morepork Lane, Ngaruawahia, Company Director, born on 2 November 1973, who died on 15 September 2015, please contact Courtney Murray, McCaw Lewis Limited:

Adelheid Marie Zurcher-Krieger Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, aka Heidi ZuercherKrieger, formerly of Waitoa, Morrinsville, Personal Assistant, born on 2 May 1963, who died on 3 September 2015 in Switzerland, please contact Sonya O’Connor, Allen, Needham & Co:  sonya@anco.co.nz  07 889 8125  07 889 5369  PO Box 12, Morrinsville 3340, DX GA24001

Colin John Hough Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, late of 198 Main South Road, Raumati, Chartered Accountant, born on 19 December 1948, who died on 21 September 2015, please contact Sally Harrow, The Law Connection:  sally@lawconnect.co.nz  04 299 3192  04 299 7686  PO Box 2079, Raumati Beach 5032

Colleen Joy Johnson Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, late of 1A Audrey Place, Matua, Tauranga, who died between 13 September and 14 September 2015 at Tauranga aged 61 years, please contact Dave Dennis, Hammonds Law:  dave@hammondslaw.co.nz  09 439 7099  09 439 6464  PO Box 16, Dargaville 0340, DX AA23502

James Andrew Kelly Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, aka James Andrew Fell, late of 77 Shortland Street, Wainoni, Christchurch, born on 15 August 1963 at Leeston Canterbury, who died on 16 June 2015 at Christchurch, please contact Carol Hannagan, Strategy Law & Mediation Limited:  carol@strategylaw.co.nz  03 374 3464  03 379 3568  PO Box 33-367, Barrington, Christchurch 8244

Karen Ann Kirwin Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, late of Rothesay Bay, Auckland, who died in Auckland on 12 September 2015 aged 52 years, please contact Sandra Callanan, Lewis Callanan:  s.callanan@lewiscallanan.co.nz  09 479 5344  09 479 3598 PO Box 35-361, Browns Bay, Auckland 0753 

Ponnambalam Kumaranathan Would any lawyer holding a will for the above named, late of 23 May Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland, born on 20 August 1949, who died on 13 July 2015, please contact Shiva Raju at Aaron Kashyap - Barrister and Solicitor:  shiva@kashyaplaw.co.nz  09 623 8277  09 623 5177  PO Box 26596, Epsom, Auckland 1344, DX CP32513

Litigation & Dispute Resolution Lawyer • Business, Property, Construction and Insolvency Disputes • 3-5 years’ experience • Shortland Street offices We are a progressive full service law firm with a long and proud history and a strong and loyal client base. We have a fantastic opportunity for a Litigation and Dispute Resolution lawyer. If you like solving problems and enjoy working in a collaborative team environment, then we would love to hear from you. You: • Experience in commercial litigation • Strong analytical, research and communication skills • A team player who has a genuine interest in law and enjoys helping people This is an excellent role for someone who enjoys an interesting range of work with the support of our specialist business law and property teams. We have a great social culture that is fun and genuinely family friendly. For more information on this position, please contact Janet Lee Martin at jleemartin@jacksonrussell.co.nz or ph 09 300 6921. To apply, please email your full application (CV and academic transcript) to Janet Direct applications are requested. All applications will be treated in confidence.

LawTalk 876 · 23 October 2015

IT’S LAW...

BUT NOT AS YOU KNOW IT

Bay of Islands Litigation Lawyer If enjoying the ultimate recreational lifestyle living in the Bay of Islands sounds appealing to you read on… We are looking for a lawyer with at least two years’ PQE to handle a general litigation caseload. The successful applicant will be based in our Kerikeri office. The position would be ideal for those looking to experience a wide variety of legal work, with opportunity to specialise more as experience increases. Please forward your application and CV to: Rick Palmer Palmer Macauley rick@pmlaw.co.nz Applications close on 12 November 2015 and will be treated in complete confidence.

Calling Stellar Solicitors Auckland or Wellington | 2 - 6+ PQE legal planit is in growth mode with some exciting opportunities on the horizon. We are keen to hear from like-minded and ambitious solicitors from a range of practice areas who are passionate about providing outstanding client service with a difference.

About You

You are tech-savvy, client focused, and most importantly a great lawyer. You enjoy meeting people, and know how to network a room. You have astute business acumen, are enthusiastic about success, and want to be part of a team who believes in something more than just ‘middle of the road’. You may be experienced in one of our existing core areas of business (property, commercial, trusts & succession planning, and immigration matters) or you may bring something entirely new (such as employment, family, or resource management law). If you are tired of working within a traditional law firm or a legal ‘factory’, need a new challenge, and want to do things differently, then legal planit is the place for you!

About Us

We embrace innovation & utilise leading-edge technology; we strive to be ahead of the pack. While we don’t change for the sake of change, we know that progress is impossible without it. For a confidential discussion about the exciting opportunities at legal planit contact Louise Lethbridge on 04 909 7638 / louise@legalplanit.co.nz or visit our careers page at www.legalplanit.co.nz

Intermediate / Senior Solicitors We are a specialist commercial law firm, focused on commercial property, infrastructure and energy projects. We effectively operate as NZ’s largest and most experienced integrated projects team.

Commercial Property Associate 3-5 years’ PQE

We are looking for a number of ambitious lawyers to join our national team at an exciting time for our firm.

Simpson Grierson has the largest infrastructure group in New Zealand. True specialists, this team covers the full spectrum of property and infrastructure activities.

· senior solicitors (8 + years PQE) with finance, energy, resource management or corporate expertise (Auckland) · intermediate solicitors (3-7 years PQE) with property expertise (Auckland and Wellington) · junior solicitors (Graduate to 2 years PQE) (Christchurch)

Supporting two senior partners, the role will expose you to local government, large infrastructure land acquisitions and property due diligence on many significant corporate transactions.

Experience in a top tier or specialist firm is desirable. We offer an extremely high performance, yet relaxed, supportive and collaborative environment. We are looking for team players with a commercial edge who are eager to test themselves. Successful candidates will enjoy working as part of a close-knit team of experts on some of NZ’s most interesting projects for our government and blue chip corporate clients. To apply, please email your CV to Bob Roche bob@greenwoodroche.com

Auckland

Advising large commercial clients across the building, transport, local government and energy sectors, this team is seeking a lawyer with a broad commercial property experience, which might include: • Forestry / agri-business; • Conveyancing, sale and purchase agreements; • Leasing; • Subdivisions; • Knowledge of Public Works Act; and • Due diligence on the property aspects of large commercial M&A and overseas investment deals. In addition, they will be a team player and mentor that will actively support and develop the junior solicitors. In return, there are excellent opportunities for growth within this high performing, friendly and supportive team. This opportunity would suit those looking to step into an Associate role, or a lawyer that wants to add big firm experience to their CV or who is returning from their travels. Please contact Jennifer Little for a confidential discussion at: Jennifer@jlrnz.com

Your legal search and recruitment partner 021 611 416 / www.jlrnz.com